BATMAN: Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More

[Herr Logan]

Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More
From
BATMAN




This thread is a spin-off of the original ‘Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6248395#post6248395)’ from the Misc. Comics Films forum. That thread was open to the discussion of all superhero properties, and I have branched out into several property-specific ones so we can better keep track of people’s posts and have more linear and organized discussions about each superhero property.

Listed below are several posts links from the original Haven that pertain to the subject of this particular thread. It is not a complete list, and anyone who wants to link or re-post something they thought was interesting is welcome to do so.
I recommend reading these posts before posting your own ideas, but it’s not a requirement.
I ask that while people can respectfully point it out, they not act harshly when a user makes a new post that contains material that is similar to what has already been posted in either the original Haven or this particular thread.

This thread, like its predecessor, is dedicated to the brainstorming and discussion of ideas pertaining to how faithful and optimally entertaining superhero movie adaptations could have, or still could, be made. This is also a place for analyzing what has come before and how that could be a basis for ideal film adaptations of the various superhero properties we know and love, more closely based on the source material. The topic of this thread is the Batman.

I think certain movies already made could be taken as a basis for fully faithful adaptations, as in a large portion of a particular movie could be left mostly the way it is with specific alterations to what held that movie back from being better. Even some of the obvious changes to the various mythos could be used to enhance the story or execution of an adaptation that could still be considered faithful by discriminating, analytical and demanding fans. If there hasn’t been a movie made of the superhero(es) discussed in this thread, then ignore the last two sentences.
I want to discuss the theoretical possibilities present in both the original source material and the existing adaptations, and how those could be put into new productions that completely nail both the "spirit" and the essential details of these mythologies. Plots, script, character traits, costumes, even casting decisions are open for discussion. This is ultimately for the purpose of creative discussions for their own sake, although I would be delighted if it inspired high-quality, faithful fan scripts beings written (Dragon has written some excellent Spider-Man screenplays, for example).

All other non-comics media are valid topics as well (live action and animated TV series, video games, etc.). Again, it's fine to use ideas from existing products (casting, plot elements, dialogue, props/effects, etc.) as a basis or part of an idea for a "new" product if the new product would be significantly more faithful, even though it would be implausible for a rebooted franchise (a la "Batman Begins") to include these same elements in reality; reality is mostly irrelevant here.
It is unlikely that these ideas will lead to a better movie being made; not unless one of the thread participants ends up being a big-time producer or someone important in the business reads this thread. This is for us, the fans. We spend a good deal of time on the Hype, and it really doesn't accomplish much in terms of tangible results anyway. That's okay, since the point of this forum, presumably, is for the purpose of imparting information, critiquing superhero products, and discussing ideas. This is for people who are intelligent, imaginative, and passionate and have ideas to share conforming to the stated topic.


Ground Rules:
If you believe that the movie adaptations already made are perfect or good enough and do not need revision or analysis, then you have nothing to contribute to this thread, so be on your way and don’t intrude where you have nothing to offer. Do not waste our time with conformist platitudes. Do not come in here and defend film decisions that are considered flaws by contributing posters, unless you have another aspect in mind that does need changing and post an equal or greater portion of text discussing a criticism or suggesting an idea for an existing or hypothetical product that is very faithful to the source material.
We’re here to talk amongst ourselves, and anyone who disagrees with the spirit of this thread is in no way obligated to read any of the content herein or reply. Any of the behavior I described above that occurs here is trolling, pure and simple. This thread isn’t about argument and hostility. The only personal criticism that should occur is that which is directed toward the producers (meaning anyone involved in the production in any way) of preexisting superhero products, and even that should be kept reasonably limited, since everyone who truly belongs in this thread is assumed to have some level of disagreement with said producers, sometimes to the point of resentment. We need not spend excessive time on blaming them for their failings, but don’t hold back your true feelings on those screw-ups either. Disagreement between rule-abiding posters is fine. Just keep it civil and within the guidelines. Or else.


Nobody is allowed to use terms like “fanboy,” “nerd,” “purist,” “hater,” or anything like that in a derogatory manner toward other posters or comic fans in general in this thread. The word "whining" and the like-- unless used with regard to a character in a movie, comic book or TV show (ex. “Spider-Man was quite the whiner...”)—is forbidden, as is “nitpicking,” and anything else intended to bully anyone into complacency and acceptance of existing products. The phrase “impossible standards” and anything to the effect of “movies and comics are different mediums, so there have to be changes,” “the general audience will not accept the same things comics fans will,” and “people want to see realism,” if not accompanied by a massive amount of faithful and potentially marketable ideas meant to compensate or work around these alleged “facts,” are also strictly forbidden.
It is okay to suggest minor deviations from the source material for this topic, as long as the majority of the ideas you put forth—or are simply replying to and agree with—are consistent with the source material and/or significantly more faithful than previous existing adaptations.
Do not belittle classic superhero or villain costumes. Do not use the word "panties" to describe those shorts that some heroes wear over their tights. It's fine to describe a costume as "tights" as long as they actually are and you aren't belittling anything. It's not okay to use the word "Spandex" to describe a costume from the comics that is not actually made of it, unless you're suggesting that Spandex, Lycra, etc. be used in the production of the movie, or maybe suggesting Neoprene or something else over it. Using the term "gay" in any derogatory sense whatsoever in this thread will result in an immediate report to a moderator, without warning, whether or not you've read this.
Again, it’s okay to disagree with a person’s criticism of a movie if you have another one to share, but do not post remarks about an existing or real-life upcoming film if you have no significant complaints about any of the productions being discussed.

I hope the guidelines are clear. Everyone is welcome to contribute or comment, as long as they follow the rules and don’t make any criticisms that are not relevant to the thread. You either belong here or you don’t, and that choice is up to you , so have respect enough to let the environment herein reflect the title of this thread.
Anyone who violates the rules or causes trouble will be promptly reported.

Thank you for your cooperation.


It is recommended, but not strictly required, that you supply a unique title at the beginning of each new post, especially when it isn’t a reply to another’s post. This will help in identifying the topic of each new post at a glance and finding specific posts with the Hype’s search engine. You can resend older posts in the appropriate thread and add titles to them.

Examples:

“Hunter Rider’s Iron Man concept #1”
“Herr Logan’s ‘Batman: Dark Knight Detective’ video game,”
“Everyman’s Captain America movie series concept #1”
“Zev’s Daredevil TV Show concept”
“Logan & Zaphod’s Batman movie series concept.”Welcome to the Safe Haven. Enjoy!


Here are a few posts from the original thread (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6248395#post6248395)to check out. Make sure to check the quoted portions, as several of these posts are two-for-one deals (which is why so many of mine are here, because I almost always reply to people’s posts and frequently use quotes from other posts). Also, most of these links lead to single post pages, but if you open those pages and click on the thread title link in the upper right corner, it will take you to that post in the full thread, where you can see what came before and afterward. If I’ve confused you and you need help navigating the links, just ask.



Batman Haven Posts


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...82#post7226182 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7226182#post7226182)
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...16#post7238016
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...51#post7238151 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7238151#post7238151)
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...75#post7669775 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7669775#post7669775)
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...97#post7701697 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7701697#post7701697)
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8146056&postcount=910
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8166164&postcount=912
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8167345&postcount=916
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8176324&postcount=924
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8190575&postcount=934
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8203962&postcount=950
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8219442&postcount=955
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8222658&postcount=956
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8224328&postcount=957
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8283002&postcount=988
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8303550&postcount=1000
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8308344&postcount=1025
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8309961&postcount=1028
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8321166&postcount=1036
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8324446&postcount=1038
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8326353&postcount=1039
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8332452&postcount=1047
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8341549&postcount=1049
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8354041&postcount=1057
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8356696&postcount=1059
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8357211&postcount=1061
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8376368&postcount=1062
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8429691&postcount=1119
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8434155&postcount=1122
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8440189&postcount=1124
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8441255&postcount=1125
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8443578&postcount=1127
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8455248&postcount=1134
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8457684&postcount=1136
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8508316&postcount=1151
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8584799&postcount=1164
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8587169&postcount=1173
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8588327&postcount=1175
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8590938&postcount=1177
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8591448&postcount=1178
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8615110&postcount=1189
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8615965&postcount=1191
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8624555&postcount=1201
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8625516&postcount=1206
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8636689&postcount=1212
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8648313&postcount=1214
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8657888&postcount=1216
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8659389&postcount=1217



"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

--George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) "Maxims for Revolutionists"

[Bathead]

I'm glad this thread was started. I can't help but feel that live-media producers seem to want to put their own stamp on Superhero properties, to make them "Theirs", sometimes to the detriment of the character. I can never understand this contention that "the movies and comics are two different mediums" and I have yet to see any convincing arguments to prove it. All I ever see is (specifically in these batman forums) comments like "No Undies, the Dead-End or any other 'faithful to the comics suit', looks silly, no fantastic villians like Clayface or Freeze,The Joker should wear make-up ,and wear a black trenchcoat", and any other number of change and complaints about the source material, make me wince. I see absolutely *NO* reason you couldn't make a movie that isn't faithful and yet still be a compelling story, although I don't mind minor changes.
For example, I wouldn't mind seeing the Batsuit for the sequel be a mix of the suit as seen in Begins and as it is in the comics, but it seems that for some there is no compromise at all. I don't know. It can be quite frustrating.

[Herr Logan]

I'm glad this thread was started. I can't help but feel that live-media producers seem to want to put their own stamp on Superhero properties, to make them "Theirs", sometimes to the detriment of the character. I can never understand this contention that "the movies and comics are two different mediums" and I have yet to see any convincing arguments to prove it. All I ever see is (specifically in these batman forums) comments like "No Undies, the Dead-End or any other 'faithful to the comics suit', looks silly, no fantastic villians like Clayface or Freeze,The Joker should wear make-up ,and wear a black trenchcoat", and any other number of change and complaints about the source material, make me wince. I see absolutely *NO* reason you couldn't make a movie that isn't faithful and yet still be a compelling story, although I don't mind minor changes.
For example, I wouldn't mind seeing the Batsuit for the sequel be a mix of the suit as seen in Begins and as it is in the comics, but it seems that for some there is no compromise at all. I don't know. It can be quite frustrating.
Welcome to the Haven, Bathead.

About that "no undies" thing, I have a fairly airtight (and trademarked, dammit!) argument for why there not only could but should be trunks included in a movie Batman costume. It would be a garment that has a rappelling harness sewn into it, making it just like a webbing harness but easier to take on and off without any tangling and such.
Also, the "shorts" part of it is extra Kevlar armor protection. There's a lot of stuff to protect in that area of the body-- it's a hub for major blood vessels, it's where the hipbones are, and of course the Wayne family "jewels."
You absolutely cannot hook a grapnel gun to a belt and have that belt safely, much less comfortably, support a 240 lb. man's weight while he's hanging from a jumpline. You'd tear his freakin' torso in two pieces eventually. You need to add support, and that's where the harness comes in. Police officers have a trouser belt that loops through their pants and a utility belt that attaches to the trouser belt with snap-on straps called "keepers." This is also basically how the Batman's trunks-harness would attach to his utility belt (assuming the belt was the pouched version, although I'm sure there's a way to modify the ultra high-tech aluminum version featured in 'Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight' so it works there, too), with the "trouser belt" type strap running through a thick waistband on the harness.

Nobody has ever made an intelligent argument against my proposal (the one time somebody did attempt to refute it, he said, "No, undies are stupid")
The only argument I can imagine being the least bit valid here is that there isn't a practical need for the trunks to be black while the bodysuit is gray. This could be refuted with some explanation that the bodysuit is a one-of-a-kind prototype and he can only color that dark, but no. The Batman doesn't use a one-of-a-kind prototype, and certainly would never do so in my ideal movie. The Batman creates multiple suits so he has plenty when he uses them up one by one. They are all fireproof and lightly armored. Frankly, I don't care whether people protest against using dark gray and black instead of all black, because those people are just ashamed that they like superheroes. To hell with them and their unforgivable cowardice. Dark gray can be stealthy, and anyone who thinks that the Batman isn't trying to be seen is a useless, pathetic simpleton. You don't dress like the Batman does unless you want attention, period. If that was the case, there would be no bat-ears, no cape, no gimmicks. This is what the Batman is, and people should either accept it like grown-ups or stop lying about being fans.

Okay, gettin' a little ranty there (that happens a lot). Anyway, I'm actually really surprised that they haven't used the trunks-harness idea in the comics already, much less a movie that has tasteless lies about "realism" (yeah, that microwave emmitter was so "realistic," the way it didn't dehydrate the people in its vicinity or even make the steam it created hot enough to scald anyone). Everything else in the Batman's costume has a practical use (the bodysuit is armored and fireproof, the ears have directional microphone antennae, the mask has nightvision and thermal vision lenses, the tips of the cape scallops have small lead weights for offensive maneuvers, etc.), so why not the trunks?

I also had an idea for the yellow ellipse behind the bat-insignia. It could be a hard armored plate that looks dark gray like the rest of the bodysuit but lights up brightly when activated. This could be used to draw attention, and then it promptly switches off and there's darkness again. It could possibly even blind enemies. Just a thought. I would use this in the third movie or later, probably, of the hypothetical series I've been discussing in the original Safe Haven thread.

Yes, there is absolutely no reason why you can't make a superhero movie that is both faithful and compelling. Not if you actually wanted to. The idea that the Joker can't act like the Joker is just plain disgusting. He either is flamboyant, wisecracking and over-the-top, or he is not the Joker. There is no compromise there. The Joker has always been an attention whore, and he has never been a serial killer. Anyone who thinks he is a serial killer doesn't know the definition. The closest definition there is for the kind of criminal the Joker is is some combination of spree killer and mass murderer. He does not stab people in back alleys and sneak around like a mysterious ghost. Not as a rule. When he attacks or torments people, he is almost always in the spotlight, in front of lots of people and in an extravagant style. Anyone who says different either has solid proof that there are a large number of examples that contradict this, or they are liars, plain and simple. I'm not even an expert on the Batman mythos and I know this is true. I know enough about the Batman and the Joker and criminology to know that this "realism" nonsense these anti-source material, pro-studio apologists keep spouting is absolute bull*****. There's nothing unrealistic about the Joker. Why? Because one, it's a fantasy universe, and two, he's insane. Period. The only things that are unrealistic about him are the logistical issues like how he continually aquires enough money to pull off the things he does and how he keeps cheating death. But if anyone has an argument against those, they better damn well openly condemn the microwave emmiter in 'Batman Begins,' Magneto's mutant-making machine in 'X-Men' and everything related to Movie!Ock's fusion machine in 'Spider-Man 2.' If you're not harshly critical of those things, then you have no grounds to call anything "unrealistic." That's me not even getting into the fact that superhero stories in any medium don't need to be overly "realistic." That's not even relevant, especially not in a thread where that fact is assumed.

Anyway, that's my rant for tonight. I apologize for how long-winded it was. I was just waiting all day for someone to post, and it all came spilling out. :O

Thanks again for posting. :up:

:wolverine

[Bathead]

Yah, I know how you feel. I can't help but feel that if all the changes some people want were to be done, the only things that would remain familiar would be the names. And I kinda wished Nolan had used a word other than "realistic" when trying to explain his approach to "Begins", it's allowed too many to use that as an excuse to change things to suit their taste.
Too many people want to change too much that is integral to the character of Batman and his world. Any talented filmmaker worth his salt would be able to stick close to the source material and still make an excellent film.
And as far as these forums on the Hype goes, I feel that some folk just don't get Batman and could give a crap about the comics, which, in my estimation, is just worng. That's where Batman was "born" and to ignore them is to disrespect the charcters and their creators.
Just to clarify one more time, I'm not totally against minor variations, as long as they don't change fundamental aspects of the mythos. Although I would prefer a more "comics-correct" costume, the One in Begins was just fine, but for the next movies I would like to see it evolve into a form closer to the comics. Same goes for the Batmobile , as cool as that was. I would just like to see the Batman that I've been reading for about 44 years to be brought to the screen the way I've known him. What's the harm in that?

[Herr Logan]

Yah, I know how you feel. I can't help but feel that if all the changes some people want were to be done, the only things that would remain familiar would be the names. And I kinda wished Nolan had used a word other than "realistic" when trying to explain his approach to "Begins", it's allowed too many to use that as an excuse to change things to suit their taste.
Too many people want to change too much that is integral to the character of Batman and his world. Any talented filmmaker worth his salt would be able to stick close to the source material and still make an excellent film.
And as far as these forums on the Hype goes, I feel that some folk just don't get Batman and could give a crap about the comics, which, in my estimation, is just worng. That's where Batman was "born" and to ignore them is to disrespect the charcters and their creators.
Just to clarify one more time, I'm not totally against minor variations, as long as they don't change fundamental aspects of the mythos. Although I would prefer a more "comics-correct" costume, the One in Begins was just fine, but for the next movies I would like to see it evolve into a form closer to the comics. Same goes for the Batmobile , as cool as that was. I would just like to see the Batman that I've been reading for about 44 years to be brought to the screen the way I've known him. What's the harm in that?
44 years? Jeez, how old are you?? You know, other than "older than [me]."

I'm also amenable to certain minor changes, and I find it far more interesting to find ways to support the presence of details from the source material with practical uses (bring out the "realism," as some call it), than to reject them for something much more bland, or just alien to the mythos. In terms of creativity, I was almost lucky they didn't explain those shorts the Batman wears, because everything else he uses has been explained as having some sort of practical purpose.

Going to what you said about a more faithful Batmobile, even the bat-fins on his car serve a purpose. They let people know whose car it is, as well as the fact that he's not in this as a hobby; he makes every piece of equipment look bat-line because he's dedicated his life to fighting criminals in the guise of a bat, and whether jaded fans think that's silly or whatever, what it means to criminals in the Batman's reality is that he's an absolute fanatic and shouldn't be taken lightly.


Another poster here and I have been sort of informally collaborating on a series of Batman movies that would start with an origin (a blend of 'The Man Who Falls' and 'Year One') and would "replace" the current actual franchise. There's no way they're going to do a "Year One" type story now, but this is all imagination anyway.
I liked 'Batman Begins' a good deal, but it could have been better. Moreover, the basic attitude behind the franchise is wrong. Jonathan Crane almost didn't even wear a mask at all in the movie, all because of this hypocritical and artificial fixation on "realism." Hell, I'm very much in favor of making superhero stories more plausible, as long as it doesn't weaken the core elements of the mythos, and by "core elements," I'm including all the various details that stand out. The Batman is a relatively unique character in any capacity, but other superheroes especially have been watered down so much in movies in recent years (Spider-Man and Wolverine as blatant examples). If you strip away the details, mannerisms and distinctive clothing of a character, you destroy that character and replace it with an archetype, and that's simply not right. Not on an artistic level, anyway. Wolverine is awesome, but a generic badass archetype without the distinctive speech and movement patterns is a dime a dozen. Spider-Man is amazing, but a humorless, mute, childish, romantic idiot in a Spider-Man costume is an embarrassment to the superhero genre. The Batman is a truly awe-inspiring character, but an aspiring hero who yearns to live a normal life, isn't interested in random street crimes at all and doesn't wear his costume for most of his screentime (after the costume is first used, anyway) simply is not the Batman.

I actually blame Frank Miller in part for making it so easy for writers today to stray from the Batman's core methods. He made him far more political in nature and far less of a hardboiled detective. Yes, the Batman is a political symbol of sorts, but he isn't primarily about inspiring good people to do good things (that's what the Bruce Wayne persona is for, and that's a complex issue, considering Bruce Wayne is widely seen as a somewhat useless person, despite his philanthropy). He's about inspiring criminals not to leave the house if they've got evil on their minds, because even if they commit a crime and get away from the scene, he'll find out what they did, track them to where they're hiding, and exact a revenge on them that they can't avoid. Yes, "dark and gritty" are good traits for the Batman, but so many people seem to have no clue as to what kind of darkness suits the Batman, as opposed to other characters. Some figure to make him as violent as possible, lots of people think the Joker should be someone who kills with every breath he takes and that there needs to be a personal vendetta between the two to make it poignant. I say that the real "darkness" is in the psychology of the Batman and his enemies. This is something that Tim Burton attempted to capitalize on and did so rather well in some ways. While the scene between Bruce Wayne and Vicki Vale in the Batcave wasn't very riveting, it did get the point across, why Bruce does what he does. "This is how it is. It's not a perfect world." That needs further development, I think, but that's a succinct summary of his character. He's a resigned, obsessive control freak who can't change his "destiny " (as he sees it, anyway) even if he wanted to. He isn't like other people, and anyone who thinks he needs to have another loved on killed for him to dedicate himself to taking down a criminal (but not kill them, dammit, because he doesn't do that, and no, Movie!R'as dying at the end of 'Begins' doesn't count as intentional or unintentional homicide by any legal definition whatsoever) simply doesn't know the character. It doesn't matter who the victim is, what matters is that people are getting hurt, the Batman won't stand for it, and he's going to use his brains to resolve the situation as best he can.

One thing that makes it difficult to judge what is "faithful" and what isn't is that the Batman is one of the characters who have changed the most over the decades (in terms of being the same person, not several people holding one title, such as the Green Lantern Corps or the various Flashes). Still, there's one thing that has never changed-- the Batman is a detective who dresses in an outlandish bat motif to inspire fear in criminals. Even the campy versions of the Batman were heavily focused on detection as the most valuable weapon against crime (which is admittedly very reactive, but I suppose they're operating on the assumption that deterrence is an effective strategy). Frank Miller and those who follow his lead didn't ruin the Batman, but he didn't put nearly as much emphasis on the detective work as they should have. In 'Year One,' the only one who seems to do detective work is James Gordon. At least he got the whole theatrical thing down, though, with floodlights, pyrotechnics and cryptic speeches whispered at criminals.

Oy, more ranting. What a week it's been. Thanks for this quote, by the way: "Any talented filmmaker worth his salt would be able to stick close to the source material and still make an excellent film." It's goin' in my signature.

[Herr Logan]

This is a list of links to posts in the original thread regarding my Batman video game idea. I'll be continuing brainstorming on this subject as well as movie ideas. Input is welcome.

‘Batman: Dark Knight Detective’

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6957244&postcount=442

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6957252&postcount=443

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6997894&postcount=454

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7111600&postcount=458

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7111608&postcount=459

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7141631&postcount=467

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7152649&postcount=473

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7152672&postcount=474

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...83#post7667483 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7667483#post7667483)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...60#post7668160 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7668160#post7668160)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...53#post7668253 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7668253#post7668253)



http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...40#post7669440 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7669440#post7669440)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...65#post7669765 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7669765#post7669765)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...89#post7851589 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7851589#post7851589)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...18#post7924218 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7924218#post7924218)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...17#post7924417 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7924417#post7924417)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...00#post7924700 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7924700#post7924700)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...37#post7925037 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7925037#post7925037)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...69#post7925269 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7925269#post7925269)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...42#post7925942 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7925942#post7925942)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...90#post7925990 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7925990#post7925990)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...05#post7926705 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7926705#post7926705)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...51#post7927251 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7927251#post7927251)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...35#post7927835 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7927835#post7927835)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...23#post7928023 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7928023#post7928023)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...88#post7928388 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7928388#post7928388)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...92#post7928792 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7928792#post7928792)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...31#post7929931 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7929931#post7929931)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...22#post7930322 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7930322#post7930322)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...17#post7935017 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7935017#post7935017)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...21#post7936021 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7936021#post7936021)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...34#post7937034 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7937034#post7937034)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...51#post7937351 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7937351#post7937351)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...69#post7940669 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7940669#post7940669)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...20#post7943820 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7943820#post7943820)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...45#post7945345 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7945345#post7945345)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...01#post7947501 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7947501#post7947501)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...16#post7948316 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7948316#post7948316)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...40#post7948740 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7948740#post7948740)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...53#post7949953 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7949953#post7949953)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...81#post7950581 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7950581#post7950581)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...76#post7950876 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7950876#post7950876)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...81#post7959181 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7959181#post7959181)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...86#post7960086 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7960086#post7960086)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...22#post7960522 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7960522#post7960522)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...95#post7966695 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7966695#post7966695)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...17#post7978517 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7978517#post7978517)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...68#post7981968 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7981968#post7981968)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...35#post7982435 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7982435#post7982435)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...17#post7987317 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7987317#post7987317)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...23#post7987923 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7987923#post7987923)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...80#post7988580 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7988580#post7988580)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...09#post7988609 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7988609#post7988609)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...57#post7988857 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7988857#post7988857)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...15#post7988915 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7988915#post7988915)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...64#post7988964 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7988964#post7988964)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...63#post7989163 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7989163#post7989163)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...46#post7990746 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7990746#post7990746)


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...50#post7991450 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7991450#post7991450)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8005846&postcount=853

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8015198&postcount=876

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8043153&postcount=884


:wolverine

[Bathead]

Well, Logan, real quick, I'm 52, been reading Batman since I was about 7 or 8, (pre-Adam West).
And thanks for the sig quote, it's the first (and probably only) time that's happened to me!

[Herr Logan]

Well, Logan, real quick, I'm 52, been reading Batman since I was about 7 or 8, (pre-Adam West).
And thanks for the sig quote, it's the first (and probably only) time that's happened to me!

52? No wonder you're so learned and wise. Guess I don't have to school you on anything Batman-related. :o

As for the quote, what can I say-- it was extremely sig-worthy. I'm not very succinct, usually, so when someone makes a brief statement that speaks volumes about something I'm likely to talk about again, I try to use it. :up:

Some questions:

What "versions" of the Batman do you prefer the most (as in either/both comics incarnations through the years and/or non-comics media)?

Which villains would you use in a Batman film franchise?

Would you use Robin, and if so, how would you implement that?

Thanks for posting.

:wolverine

[Bathead]

Well, let's see...
No one particular Batman version, but even though I started on and enjoyed the more kid-friendly Batman of the early 60's (which frankly, to me as an 8-year old boy, the stories weren't as silly as a lot of modern fans think), I much prefer the modern more serious take, as even back in the 60's I used to think he could be a really cool serious character. As far as other media than the comics, I would say Begins is the Batman movie I've been waiting for for over forty years, surpassing my previous fave, Batman '89. It, along with BTAS, are what I consider the most faithful renditions of the character, and I'm kinda liking The Batman cartoon too, not as good as BTAS , but neither is it as bad as some think.
Villians? Well, pretty much any of the well-known rogue's gallery (except Bane, not a fan). And I'm not opposed to seeing some of the more fantastic villians like Man-bat , Clayface and the like. This whole slavishness to the rather vague concept of "realism", is perhaps keeping us from some really good stories. I think Nolan could do any of them justice. I'm especially looking forward to see his version of the Joker.
As far as Robin goes ... well, sorry but I've never liked the character even when I was a kid. Even back then I knew Robin was strictly a gimmick to give it's young readers someone to identify with, basically saying "Wouldn't it be cool if *you* were Robin and got to hang around with Batman?" I never bought into that because my response to that would have been "No, it would be *much* cooler if I was Batman himself." I could do without Robin.

[Herr Logan]

Personally, I wouldn't use Clayface or the Man-Bat, only because I don't feel they're important enough to the mythos (or cool enough) to warrant a spot in the movies, since there's limited room for major characters in the movie format. It's got nothing to do with "realism" or whatever.

I would try to keep the overall tone of my ideal Batman franchise somewhat "down to earth," but only to create a noirish/hardboiled detective/gritty crime drama atmosphere that can be frequently elevated by the more outlandish occurences of the Batman universe.
I would never water down a major villain just to appease people who are ashamed to be so-called "fans" of sci-fi/fantasty superhero themes. My version of the Joker would be very much like Jack Nicholson's rendition in 'BATMAN,' except without the pre-clownface mob history; Mark Hammil's animated incarnation would actually be the model for behavior.
The Penguin, although not personally involved in armed robberies when first introduced in the first movie, would utilize weapons disguised as umbrellas and trained birds. He just isn't the Penguin without the umbrellas, period. Also, I think the whole hidden firearms thing should be a subplot in itself, considering how useful that could be for former convicted felons who aren't legally allowed to carry guns.
The Riddler, while not as flamboyant and inexplicably giddy as some past incarnations, would wear a green suit with prominent question marks, a bowler hat and carry a question-mark cane (possibly with hidden firearm or cutting blade, courtesy of the Penguin's supplier... it's a small world afterall).
Two-Face would damn well wear a suit that has two separate designs on each side, regardless of what studio apologists think of that.


In terms of the villains that many so-called "fans" on here deem "unrealistic," I think Mr. Freeze is definitely one I'd want to use (and do it properly). I didn't realize until recently that it was the Animated Series that created the current incarnation used in the comics, but however it happened, that character would be great in a movie.

[Herr Logan]

I'd actually have the third film sort of "redo" 'Batman Forever,' just in terms of which characters are prominent. I'd have Two-Face and the Riddler be the primary supervillains, and introduce Robin. I think the concept of Robin could be very useful and provide a vehicle for exploring other facets of the Batman's personality having to do with his views on his mortality, his views on grief and purpose, etc. It would also continue the theme of the Batman exploring his ability to connect to other human beings for real instead of as an act in the Bruce Wayne facade. In the first movie, the Batman would learn to work with others (Harvey Dent and James Gordon). In the second movie, he'd experiment with a real romantic relationship as opposed to his usual womanizing public facade (with both the Selena Kyle and Catwoman personas). In the third movie, he'd take it upon himself to guide another person in similar circumstances as himself and try to keep him from becoming as emotionally disassociated as himself. Perhaps the missing piece there would be that Dick Grayson will have Alfred Pennyworth from whom to learn how humans should act, and the Batman from whom to learn how to channel one's grief-inspired antisocial tendencies into something constructive. That balance leaves him more “human” than Bruce Wayne, who couldn’t relate to other humans on an emotional level beyond a certain degree, all the way through adulthood.

I should make it clear, if I haven't already, that Dick Grayson would be a teenager when his parents die, not a college-age punk with an attitude like in 'Batman Forever.' He'll be taken in because he's not of legal age to be independent and social services would prefer he have a home that isn't the circus.


I'm really into the psychological aspects of these characters and I think there's a lot of themes to explore in a movie series. Unfortunately, real movies are made by people who somehow think that a superfluous romance and precious few moments in costume actually develop an interesting character. They do not. The Batman should be in costume for more than half of his screentime from the moment he first dons it. The Bruce Wayne persona isn't all the interesting in and of itself, and I would show the audience more or less definitively that he isn't capable of existing independently of the Batman by the end of the second movie. Yeah, I'd have Bruce and Selena Kyle make an earnest attempt at a relationship, but that's not the same as throwing in a half-assed, tacked on love interest like Rachel Dawes or whatever. Bruce would discover that Selena is Catwoman, and while each corresponding indentity between the two people have chemistry with each other (Bruce with Selena, Batman with Catwoman), the Batman's code of ethics stands between them and through his judgements, ends up chasing Catwoman-- and thus Selena-- away. So it's basically an interrupted process, yielding no certain results, but rather than attempt to fix things with Catwoman, he decides it's too much work and therefore too much of a distraction from what is really important in his life-- fighting crime, saving lives, and generally being perpetually prepared for every potential tactical situation.

Man, that went all over the place, didn't it?


I also wanted to clarify that when I said I wanted to keep an overall "down to earth tone" overall, that only refers to most of the non-vigilante and non-villain characters. That sets up a contrast between the different types of characters, making the Batman and his supervillains seem even more impressive. I would not inhibit physical or creative aspects of the characters to satisfy the ignorant masses of anti-fans' banal desire to see a "realistic" Batman story. If it was realistic, it wouldn't be Batman, plain and simple.


Also, Bathead, I'd be glad to hear your ideas for how you'd implement Clayface and the Man-Bat or whoever else you'd want to see in a movie. I was just stating my personal preference earlier, which wasn't meant to get in your way.
My preference also differs from yours in that I do like Bane. He's impressive to me because he's smarter than a lot of the Batman's other villains. :o

:wolverine

[Bathead]

Well, Clayface and Man-Bat were only examples of the more fanastic members of the Rogue's gallery, I probably wouldn't use them for the same reasons you state. As to other villians, I pretty much agree with your ideas. I was watching Batman Beyond : Return of the Joker, I think that would be a good direction to go in, That Joker came across very creepy and evil. I still like the idea of Penguin being a high-society wannabe, who commits bird themed crimes to finance his climb up the social ladder, using of course his trademark trick umbrellas. Riddler, I always looked at as a real intellectual challenge for Bats, unfortunately I don't feel any of the incarnations presented in any movies or TV shows have gotten that right yet. Two-Face can be a nicely tragic character if done right. I'll be interested in how Nolan treats him.
I hate to end with a simple "me too", but pretty much everything else you've said as to how Batman should be brought to the screen jibes with my feelings.

[Herr Logan]

Well, Clayface and Man-Bat were only examples of the more fanastic members of the Rogue's gallery, I probably wouldn't use them for the same reasons you state. As to other villians, I pretty much agree with your ideas. I was watching Batman Beyond : Return of the Joker, I think that would be a good direction to go in, That Joker came across very creepy and evil. I still like the idea of Penguin being a high-society wannabe, who commits bird themed crimes to finance his climb up the social ladder, using of course his trademark trick umbrellas. Riddler, I always looked at as a real intellectual challenge for Bats, unfortunately I don't feel any of the incarnations presented in any movies or TV shows have gotten that right yet. Two-Face can be a nicely tragic character if done right. I'll be interested in how Nolan treats him.
I hate to end with a simple "me too", but pretty much everything else you've said as to how Batman should be brought to the screen jibes with my feelings.

A "me too" is okay if you're agreeing with me. Being right is gratifying, isn't it? :)

So you didn't think the Riddler from the Batman Animated Series got it right? I agree that it needed improvement, but I would say that's the best non-comics version I've seen so far. John Glover was a great choice for voice-acting, and I would use the same sort of calm, smug demeanor for him in a movie.

Honestly, I don't expect Nolan to get anything right this next time around, after hearing that one major theme of the movie is that Bruce Wayne is the dominant persona instead of the Batman (wrong!), and that the Joker will have a "small and mysterious" part in the movie. That's completely off base, and anyone who says that the Joker should ever be portrayed as a shadowy spectre instead of a spectacular, flamboyant histrionic simply doesn't know the character at all. The Joker doesn't do "small and mysterious," period. He's mysterious as far as his original identity and a few of his more exceptional methods (aquiring weaponry, cheating death), but never in his M.O. He doesn't lurk in the shadows much of the time or stab people randomly, and again, anyone who thinks otherwise is full of *****. We're talking about a hideous blend of personality disorders (narcissistic, histrionic and antisocial, for starters) that do not lend him to subtle or stealthy behavior. He's an entertainer in his own mind, and you don't entertain people by hiding. Then again, you don't usually entertain people by killing them, but that's beside the point. :o

I don't know what they're doing with Two-Face. I just know that one big reason they're going to have the Joker throw acid in his face instead of Sal Maroni is that Goyer and Nolan obviously either had no ability or no desire to present a plausible and well-constructed organized crime plot. A real Mafia boss would never be caught at the scene of a drug smuggling operation, and especially not Carmine Falcone. If they can't get Falcone right, they sure as hell aren't going to set up an even remotely complex underworld structure with rival bosses, much less lead the story to where Maroni would be maneuvered into testifying against Falcone and then attacking Dent in court. No, they chose to make Falcone inherently stupid and extremely unrealistic and then make him insane.
In my Batman movie concept, there's a real organized crime structure in Gotham and Harvey Dent is fighting it from the very first movie. None of this Rachel Dawes crap or unspeakably weak Mafia bosses that personally oversee serious felonies in progress.

:wolverine

[Bathead]

I wouldn't worry yet Logan, All these reports about the Joker's screen time and the rest about the sequel are mere rumors at this point.

[Herr Logan]

I wouldn't worry yet Logan, All these reports about the Joker's screen time and the rest about the sequel are mere rumors at this point.

Only the Power of Negative Thinking can help make the next Batman movie decent (or at least as decent as the previous one).

You see, the Universe seeks to disappoint me, but also to prove me wrong, and if I assume the worst, I can't be disappointed and proving me wrong would mean yielding a happy surprise. It's a good system.


Seriously, when these people perpetually mouth off about "realism" and such nonsense, I can only assume that they'll act on their wrong-headed desires to strip the mythos of its fantastic elements, even if the result isn't acually realistic at all (Carmine Falcone; the microwave emmitter).

:wolverine

[Bathead]

Well, I heard they wanted to do a take on a 1957 Batman Comics story where Batman and Robin travel to a distant planet where Batman becomes the alien's king, entitled "King Batman the First."
Of course I'm kidding. BTW, that's an actual story.

[Herr Logan]

Well, I heard they wanted to do a take on a 1957 Batman Comics story where Batman and Robin travel to a distant planet where Batman becomes the alien's king, entitled "King Batman the First."
Of course I'm kidding. BTW, that's an actual story.

The question is, was the Joker in that 1957 planet-hopping story, and if so, was his role "small and mysterious."

:p

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

Okay, so I'm waiting for Zaphod's classes and exams to finish so I can get new material concerning the Batman's origin for our hypothetical movie 'The Batman.'

In the meantime, I'll outline some of the aspects that are included in this concept. Many of these sections are subject to change, and this is not complete.

Know that there will be a voiceover dialogue, from Bruce Wayne and the Batman, running over the course of the movie; if I mention story elements that "tell" the viewer information instead of "showing" it, it's because the monologue is filling in the blanks. I realize there's a general preference for "showing, not telling" in fiction, but this is a story based on comics books, and comic books have word bubbles and narrative captions, and I feel it would be remiss to neglect that. Comic books allow us to get into the heads of characters, and that's what I want in a superhero movie as well.

This movie will include an origin story that focuses on--
Bruce Wayne's childhood and early teen years, starting from the day he fell through some rotted boards covering up a hole that leads into the massive cave beneath Wayne Manor. Bruce is attacked by bats, first just one (the "omen-bat", then hundreds rush in and swirl around him. Bruce develops bat-phobia because of this. This is at age 6.
When Bruce is 8, Thomas (a philanthropist and renowned surgeon) and Martha (a social worker and activist) Wayne are murdered outside of a Park Row theater playing a special showing of 'The Mark of Zorro,' which Bruce insisted upon seeing with his parents. They were murdered at precisely 10:47pm, and Bruce remembers this.
During this length of time, Bruce is consumed with his mission to be "the best" at everything that may help him prevent, stop and avenge violent crimes like that which took his parents from him. He will train his mind and body to a great extent between the ages of 8 and 14, the only limit being those set on the basis of safety by family friend, Dr. Leslie Thompkins, and his legal guardian, Alfred Pennyworth. He becomes a young athlete and tests extremely highly on intelligence tests. During all this, he has practically no friends and spends very little time doing anything other than building his wealth of knowledge and physical skills (ex. gymnastics, martial arts).
At school, Bruce violently intervenes when one fellow student extorts another for money.
Throughout all his early life sequences, there is a strong focus on the psychology of Bruce. This raises questions in Leslie and Alfred about just how damaged Bruce became when his parents died, and how he hasn't healed from it nearly at all. Psychologists suggest the possibility that Bruce may have a schizoid personality disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder) (a pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships and a restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings) that surfaced much earlier in life than is usual. This diagnosis is left somewhat ambiguous, but the criteria will be listed, and viewers who are paying attention may remember and identify those behaviors in the Batman when Bruce is grown. It is supposed to be ambiguous, because the Batman is anything but passive during stressful situations, and Bruce Wayne is extremely adept at faking social skills and empathy.
Bruce shows a little bit of unambiguous enjoyment when driving fast cars and motorcycles (illegally, as he's not of legal age to drive at this point).
Bruce attends college courses during his early teens, studying many subjects, including criminology, law, and various physical sciences.
"At age 14 he travelled to Europe, and spent time at Cambridge University, the Sorbonne in Paris, Berlin School of Science and a dozen other places. He spent time with the denizens of the street, learning less savoury skills. At age 20 he entered the FBI and stayed for six weeks before realizing that shuffling papers was no way to fight crime. He then travelled to the East to learn further skills.
"He learnt karate and other martials art forms from an ascended master in the Paektusan mountains of Korea. From the ninjas he learned how to use the shadows, how to use psychology to win the battle before it's even fought, the precautions to take when you make yourself a target, and how to use fear.
"He learned savate from a convicted killer living as a beach bum on an island off Borneo.He discovered the value of judo and ju-jitsu during six months in a Japanese hermitage, and learned the secrets of the tao from an old Chinese woman. He mastered a dozen disciplines, and merged them all into a style which was uniquely his."
"In Africa he learned how to read the environment for the signs of human passage - how to follow a trail to which ordinary men were blind."*
Bruce encountered a Native American tribal chief in Alaska who used wooden totem masks to empower him. He favors a bat mask, and
although it hardly looks like a real bat, the psychological transformation of the chief is powerful enough to frighten Bruce, who still suffers from bat-phobia and nightmares about being attacked by bats in the underground cave back home.
Bruce studies under renowned detectives to hone his ability to follow clues in more urban environments and use technology to aid in detection.
After 12 years of training, Bruce, now age 26, comes back to Wayne Manor in secret. He tells Alfred of his time spent abroad and about the mission that he will now actively tend to. Bruce gathers an assortment of Less-than-Lethal tactical gear (gas grenades; plastic, hollow bolas with retracting wire; grappling hooks; et all), other weaponry (shuriken, boomerang) and detection equipment (high-grade, miniaturized crime scene investigator's forensics kit), disguises his face with movie-grade makeup, puts on a bullet-proof vest and heads into Gotham City, spoiling for a fight to test his abilities. He witnesses a hooker being struck by her pimp (this is subject to change) and intervenes. An all-out brawl breaks out and drags on long enough for trigger-happy GCPD officers to arrive and get involved. Bruce is stabbed by one of the hookers (defending her scumbag pimp for some stupid reason) and shot by a cop; he is forced to retreat.
When Bruce arrives back at home, he is losing a good amount of blood and utterly despondent. In his father's study, continuing to bleed, he ponders what it is that he failed to do, failed to learn, failed to be. He cannot bear to "wait" any longer to pursue his righteous cause and he refuses to activate the intercom to summon Alfred (a trained military field medic) to patch him up until he has his answers. He recognizes that the one thing that could have tipped the scales in his favor was a more frightening presence, as "criminals tend to be a cowardly and superstitious lot." He was dressed like a man, moved like a man (albeit a highly trained one) and did not catch his adversaries off-guard with his appearance. Bruce asks his dead parents what he should do, what he should be; as if in answer, an "omen-bat" comes crashing through the window and flies around Bruce's head, terrifying him for a moment. The bat settles on the mantle beneath a large painted portrait of Thomas and Martha Wayne and seems to stare at Bruce. "A Bat. A will become a Bat." Batman is conceived right there in that room, to be born in mere days when Bruce has created a fitting appearance and persona.
More to come. Comments are welcome!


*Quoted or paraphrased from The Dark Knight: FAQs (http://www.darkknight.ca/faq/batman-faq.html)

[Herr Logan]

Wrong thread.

[Cullen]

I started this over at the original Safe Haven, but as there is a thread devoted to it here at the Batman forum, I figured I moved it over here. So as there is no confusion (and no need for linkage) I'm reposting my original, with intro. Which is as follows:

All this is currently is detailing how I would put the Joker in a first film, as cameos. While I will be forced into talking about my ideas for the film proper, bear in mind neither the film itself nor these cameoes are "set in stone", as it were. Feel free to tear it down. I won't cry.

Too much.

Ya bunch of meanies.

I'm dividing these cameos up into seperate posts so that they're easier to comment on.

Here, then, is the original post:
One: The movie opens with the criminal mastermind Red Hood and his gang being run to ground. For reasons of their own, the gang is raiding a chemical plant when Commissioner Gordon and the Gotham PD arrive to round them up. Events seem to be shaping up quite well, but Gordon has a worry. Up until this point the Batman has played an active role in handling the gang. It is more than a little odd that he isn't here for the end of things, and even odder that he doesn't seem to be the first to arrive.

For once, it turns out that Batman is a step behind Gotham's finest, but with cause. While they were setting off after Red Hood, he was verifying a troubling lead.

According to one of his sources, the Red Hood is little more than a stooge set up for the police to focus on instead of the true mastermind behind the scheme. Several people have filled the role since the gang began, usually lowly button men. This current Red Hood appears to be a comedian being blackmailed into the part.

This information is no more than given to Gordon when things start to go wrong in the plant. A massive firefight breaks out, and Batman must race inside to turn the tide.

During this fierce battle, Batman finds himself on a catwalk high above several bubbling vats. With him are the Red Hood and what seems to be a generic thug. The two are struggling and shouting, though who is acting the heavy and who is trying to get away can't be told. The Red Hood shoves the thug away from him, and the thug goes over the rails, tumbling to the floor below.

Batman calls out to the Red Hood, convinced for the moment that the man is an innocent in all of this. Whether this is true or not, the other man takes one look at the Dark Knight and runs in the other direction. Pursuit ensues.

It doesn't last long. The Red Hood discovers that he's trapped between Batman and the Gotham police. Rather than face either of them, he dives headfirst into a vat. He vanishes into the bubbling liquid and does not emerge. I realize that, in the original story, it's Batman and Robin who corner the Red Hood. As I don't wanna deal with the Boy Wonder, I thought this would work as well.

I have hints of Alan Moore's version of things here as well, which I hope isn't too disagreeable. There's more to it than that, but for right now I thought I'd just point it out.

And no, the pun wasn't intended.

The Red Hood gang plays a large part of the story I'm considering, but the Red Hood/Joker himself does not. Next CullenBatman post expands on this. The one following that wraps up Joker's involvement in the film, as well as reveals just why I handled things like this, as well as how I think I would handle the rest of the series.


End original post. New Stuff:

I hope to get new stuff up very soon.

[Herr Logan]

I started this over at the original Safe Haven, but as there is a thread devoted to it here at the Batman forum, I figured I moved it over here. So as there is no confusion (and no need for linkage) I'm reposting my original, with intro. Which is as follows:

All this is currently is detailing how I would put the Joker in a first film, as cameos. While I will be forced into talking about my ideas for the film proper, bear in mind neither the film itself nor these cameoes are "set in stone", as it were. Feel free to tear it down. I won't cry.

Too much.

Ya bunch of meanies.

I'm dividing these cameos up into seperate posts so that they're easier to comment on.

Here, then, is the original post:
One: The movie opens with the criminal mastermind Red Hood and his gang being run to ground. For reasons of their own, the gang is raiding a chemical plant when Commissioner Gordon and the Gotham PD arrive to round them up. Events seem to be shaping up quite well, but Gordon has a worry. Up until this point the Batman has played an active role in handling the gang. It is more than a little odd that he isn't here for the end of things, and even odder that he doesn't seem to be the first to arrive.

For once, it turns out that Batman is a step behind Gotham's finest, but with cause. While they were setting off after Red Hood, he was verifying a troubling lead.

According to one of his sources, the Red Hood is little more than a stooge set up for the police to focus on instead of the true mastermind behind the scheme. Several people have filled the role since the gang began, usually lowly button men. This current Red Hood appears to be a comedian being blackmailed into the part.

This information is no more than given to Gordon when things start to go wrong in the plant. A massive firefight breaks out, and Batman must race inside to turn the tide.

During this fierce battle, Batman finds himself on a catwalk high above several bubbling vats. With him are the Red Hood and what seems to be a generic thug. The two are struggling and shouting, though who is acting the heavy and who is trying to get away can't be told. The Red Hood shoves the thug away from him, and the thug goes over the rails, tumbling to the floor below.

Batman calls out to the Red Hood, convinced for the moment that the man is an innocent in all of this. Whether this is true or not, the other man takes one look at the Dark Knight and runs in the other direction. Pursuit ensues.

It doesn't last long. The Red Hood discovers that he's trapped between Batman and the Gotham police. Rather than face either of them, he dives headfirst into a vat. He vanishes into the bubbling liquid and does not emerge.I realize that, in the original story, it's Batman and Robin who corner the Red Hood. As I don't wanna deal with the Boy Wonder, I thought this would work as well.

I have hints of Alan Moore's version of things here as well, which I hope isn't too disagreeable. There's more to it than that, but for right now I thought I'd just point it out.

And no, the pun wasn't intended.

The Red Hood gang plays a large part of the story I'm considering, but the Red Hood/Joker himself does not. Next CullenBatman post expands on this. The one following that wraps up Joker's involvement in the film, as well as reveals just why I handled things like this, as well as how I think I would handle the rest of the series.


End original post. New Stuff:

I hope to get new stuff up very soon. Last edited by Cullen : Today at 04:40 PM. Reason: grammarical screw up.
Best go back and re-edit your editing note, Sullen. :p


I guess I'll have to see more from you on this before I can offer any real commentary, as I'm not seeing the big picture here, yet.

Thanks for posting and for using a post title. Hope to see more stuff from you soon. :up:

:wolverine

[Cullen]

Best go back and re-edit your editing note, Sullen. :p


I guess I'll have to see more from you on this before I can offer any real commentary, as I'm not seeing the big picture here, yet.

Thanks for posting and for using a post title. Hope to see more stuff from you soon. :up:

:wolverineNo, no. Let that edit remain as a monument to my inability to spell.

And here is me crawling off somewhere to die of shame.:(

[LongDong]

:up::up: this is a very interesting thread!!!

[Herr Logan]

:up::up: this is a very interesting thread!!!

Thanks, LongDong.

Welcome to the Haven. :up:


:wolverine

[MaskedManJRK]

Sounds cool. I got a lot of cool ideas for these--including my version of a early-years Batman trilogy, which includes YO, TLH, DV, and other, while not exactly EARLY-years, critically acclaimed comics.

I also have an idea for an hour-long drama that is some-what my Ultimate version of Batman--and by Ultimate, I don't mean just adding swear words and fingerless gloves, I mean a massive-sprawling story featuring all the characters in a cohesive manner.

But not right now, for it is past 12 and I must sleep. Soon, my friends...soon...:batman:

[Herr Logan]

Sounds cool. I got a lot of cool ideas for these--including my version of a early-years Batman trilogy, which includes YO, TLH, DV, and other, while not exactly EARLY-years, critically acclaimed comics.

Sounds great. Can't wait. Welcome to the Haven. :up:

I also have an idea for an hour-long drama that is some-what my Ultimate version of Batman--and by Ultimate, I don't mean just adding swear words and fingerless gloves, I mean a massive-sprawling story featuring all the characters in a cohesive manner.

Do you mean "Ultimate" as in the Marvel's 'Ultimate' line of comics?
Just remember that the watch-word for this thread is "faithful." Some minor changes to continuity and equipment and so forth are acceptable-- and actually a good idea for this thread, because it gives us a little something to think about instead of just "editing" a franchise's history to fit in a movie or TV show time slot-- but major changes such as the differences between the real X-Men and 'Ultimate X-Men' are frowned upon. Just lettin' ya know; if I read

But not right now, for it is past 12 and I must sleep. Soon, my friends...soon...:batman:


"Sleepiness is weakness of character; ask anybody."

--Hoban Washbourne, Firefly

:wolverine

[MaskedManJRK]

Do you mean "Ultimate" as in the Marvel's 'Ultimate' line of comics?
Just remember that the watch-word for this thread is "faithful." Some minor changes to continuity and equipment and so forth are acceptable-- and actually a good idea for this thread, because it gives us a little something to think about instead of just "editing" a franchise's history to fit in a movie or TV show time slot-- but major changes such as the differences between the real X-Men and 'Ultimate X-Men' are frowned upon. Just lettin' ya know; if I read

I hear ya, and it's nothing too drastic, I think. The worst I do is change circumstances of an origin/slight change as to how "who" became "what," but most of the changes I have are what have been suggested in the comics before, but never taken in as fully. I dunno, let me get the trilogy done first before I get further into that. Who knows, maybe if you like my ideas for the trilogy enough, you might trust it a little more. :up:

[Beelze]

Good thread, but what was wrong with the Microwave Emitter?

[Herr Logan]

Good thread, but what was wrong with the Microwave Emitter?

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I'm pretty sure that if a machine emitted microwaves in all directions and was powerful enough to cause water in underground pipes to burst out of those pipes as steam, it would severely harm the humans who were around it as well. It would either dehydrate or make people sizzle and/or combust, or otherwise burn. Like I said, I'm not completely sure about this, but it seems pretty damn logical.

This, however, is something I'm completely sure of:
Putting the direct effects of microwaves on humans aside, if the water burst out of the pipes as massive clouds of steam, that steam would burn the people it touched very badly. There is no argument against that. That means that everything that was said about 'Batman Begins' being "realistic" was full of *****, because several things about the movie, the most obvious being the microwave emmitter, were completely implausible and only a blind, sheep-like studio apologist would dare lie to me with arguments to the contrary.

Other major examples of the pervasively unrealistic nature of the movie include:

The rappelling utility harness having straps over the shoulders but no actual pelvic harness, since you can't safely hang from a cable attached to belt that has no real harness.
Carmine Falcone, allegedly the kingpin of crime in Gotham City, being found in the vicinity of goons smuggling drugs. This would never happen to a real Mafia boss, period. Any argument to the contrary is, again, a complete lie. If he was a Capo, maybe, but never the top dog. That bull***** doesn't even happen in 'The Sopranos,' much less real life.


Welcome to the Haven.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

I hear ya, and it's nothing too drastic, I think. The worst I do is change circumstances of an origin/slight change as to how "who" became "what," but most of the changes I have are what have been suggested in the comics before, but never taken in as fully. I dunno, let me get the trilogy done first before I get further into that. Who knows, maybe if you like my ideas for the trilogy enough, you might trust it a little more. :up:
My trust is not easily won...


...I've been hurt before. :(


;)
I look forward to your trilogy. :up:

:wolverine

[Beelze]

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I'm pretty sure that if a machine emitted microwaves in all directions and was powerful enough to cause water in underground pipes to burst out of those pipes as steam, it would severely harm the humans who were around it as well. It would either dehydrate or make people sizzle and/or combust, or otherwise burn. Like I said, I'm not completely sure about this, but it seems pretty damn logical.
It was never stated that it emitted microwaves in all directions, and if no one could build such a thing that didn't emit microwaves in all directions, and thus hurting people, people would never really consider building such a thing in real life (unless it was to be used in an area inhabited only by your enemies). Yet people have built things dealing with microwaves (laboratory equipment, microwave ovens). Just like a household microwave oven doesn't kill its user, because the area of effect is limited, the Microwave Emitter doesn't either, because it is a weapon which has a fixed direction of "fire" (or a direction you can configure yourself. In the train the direction was downwards, obviously, and on the cargo ship it could also have been downwards.) The Microwave Emitter would work quite similar to how LASER ("Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation") works - in fact, the term for what the Microwave Emitter is doing is MASER ("Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.")

About MASER: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser.

Putting the direct effects of microwaves on humans aside, if the water burst out of the pipes as massive clouds of steam, that steam would burn the people it touched very badly. There is no argument against that. That means that everything that was said about 'Batman Begins' being "realistic" was full of *****, because several things about the movie, the most obvious being the microwave emmitter, were completely implausible and only a blind, sheep-like studio apologist would dare lie to me with arguments to the contrary.
I think the clouds of steam would cool down and also disperse enough for a person to be able to wander into into the vapor and be effected by the panic-inducing toxin without being terribly burned. Batman himself passes through the bursts of steam very fast when he's hanging from the train, and even then he's only passing through the tops of the steamy clouds. Also, apparently Batman's suit regulates body temperature. Others do pass directly through fresh clouds, but we only see those people for a few seconds. Besides Batman there's only one man we see that is actually standing pretty much directly in a geyser of steam and who's face we clearly see, however, like with the other people, we only see that man for a second or so. So, for all we know, people standing in fresh clouds of hot steam did get burnt, but there were no scenes showing it (and the movie was PG13).

The rappelling utility harness having straps over the shoulders but no actual pelvic harness, since you can't safely hang from a cable attached to belt that has no real harness.
Actually, it doesn't have straps over the shoulders in the movie. There's a scene where he cuts them off, during the construction of his suit, and in the scene after his first meeting with the Scarecrow we don't see any straps. Now, couldn't the suit, combined with the belt (which might sit on real tight, unlike other incarnations of Batman where the belt is an actual, loose belt. Sure, we don't see him securing the belt tightly to the suit, but it's a possibility that he did), function as a suitable harness? Even if it couldn't, I wouldn't say this was a major screw-up.

Carmine Falcone, allegedly the kingpin of crime in Gotham City, being found in the vicinity of goons smuggling drugs. This would never happen to a real Mafia boss, period. Any argument to the contrary is, again, a complete lie. If he was a Capo, maybe, but never the top dog. That bull***** doesn't even happen in 'The Sopranos,' much less real life.
I agree with this one. We were given no good reason for why Carmine Falcone himself would have to be at the scene. I guess this does decrease the realism of the movie, since realism doesn't only pertain to physics and so on, but also things like social behavior. The top dog doesn't babysit his goons, and Carmine did seem to be the top dog, or at least one of the top dogs, in Begins. Anyway, I haven't been able to rationalize this bit away. Still, this set-up, however unrealistic, did deliver one of my favorite moments in the movie though, namely the part where Batman breaks into the car and grabs Falcone. That same moment could've been included in a more realistic set-up though, I'm sure.

-------

Begins is still the most realistic of all the Batman movies so far, and fairly realistic on its own. First, the movie takes time to show the possibility of a man being able to train himself to be as good as Batman, and it shows him actually doing research on what's going on in Gotham, who he can trust, and how he can make things better. Technology-wise, it shows a realistic and protective suit being constructed using real technologies, or technologies believed to be possible and currently being researched on, and it shows vehicle doing things a vehicle could do in real life (the cars they built for the movie could do the things the Tumbler did in the movie). The panic inducing toxin isn't that far-fetched (then again, any movie using the Scarecrow would have to use it, unless they're trying some very different things with the character). Also, the movie pretty much abides the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. It has some science fiction in it, but such things are still grounded in reality (until proven to be impossibilities, of course).

There are probably some minor flaws in the areas I just mentioned, but nothing that really stands out. Instead, the unrealism in the movie comes mostly from human behaviour, specifically Carmine Falcone. He would probably not do what he did, being at the docks, but at least it wasn't impossible for him to do it. One could also speak of such a flaw when it comes to Ra's al Ghul's decision not to kill Bruce after having gotten him knocked unconscious in Wayne Manor... especially since he, only moments after, orders his men to "make sure no one comes out" (including Bruce, of course.) It is also a bit weird how the police force lost track of the Tumbler like that, but I suppose such a getaway is possible, seeing as the police was taken by surprise. Another thing that I don't like is the scene where Batman uses the Tumbler to jump to the spot nex to where Gordon is standing. I'm alright with him and Gordon meeting there by coincidence. What bugs me is that we don't see Batman taking any precaution as to not crush an innocent bystander. Perhaps he's got some heat vision goggles or whatever, so that he could see that it was safe to land at that spot, but we don't see him taking the precaution. He could've killed Gordon.

So, I hope the sequel's script is more cleverly written, and makes sure to see to that the villains are smarter, and that we get to see Bruce being less reckless (I know that was part of character development and that he did manage himself better towards the very end of Begins, where he tried to cause as little collateral damage as possible. I'm just saying the sequel shouldn't have him repeat those reckless mistakes). We should also see Bruce putting more effort into covering his tracks and thus protecting his secret identity from being revealed to the public (revealing that he was Batman to Rachel wasn't that smart, even with him trusting her not to tell anyone.) In other words, fix the character-related flaws/unrealism.

Welcome to the Haven.
Thanks. I'll keep reading, and I think I'll enjoy my stay. :)

[Herr Logan]

Actually, it doesn't have straps over the shoulders in the movie. There's a scene where he cuts them off, during the construction of his suit, and in the scene after his first meeting with the Scarecrow we don't see any straps. Now, couldn't the suit, combined with the belt (which might sit on real tight, unlike other incarnations of Batman where the belt is an actual, loose belt. Sure, we don't see him securing the belt tightly to the suit, but it's a possibility that he did), function as a suitable harness? Even if it couldn't, I wouldn't say this was a major screw-up.

I'm aware that the straps were cut off. I'm pointing out that they had it built in that incorrect fashion in the first place, and secondly, there was no proper harness attached to the belt before or after the Batman used it. No, the belt alone is not enough.


There are probably some minor flaws in the areas I just mentioned, but nothing that really stands out.

Thanks. I'll keep reading, and I think I'll enjoy my stay. :)

You need to re-read this, very carefully:

Ground Rules:
If you believe that the movie adaptations already made are perfect or good enough and do not need revision or analysis, then you have nothing to contribute to this thread, so be on your way and don’t intrude where you have nothing to offer. Do not waste our time with conformist platitudes. Do not come in here and defend film decisions that are considered flaws by contributing posters, unless you have another aspect in mind that does need changing and post an equal or greater portion of text discussing a criticism or suggesting an idea for an existing or hypothetical product that is very faithful to the source material.
We’re here to talk amongst ourselves, and anyone who disagrees with the spirit of this thread is in no way obligated to read any of the content herein or reply. Any of the behavior I described above that occurs here is trolling, pure and simple. This thread isn’t about argument and hostility. The only personal criticism that should occur is that which is directed toward the producers (meaning anyone involved in the production in any way) of preexisting superhero products, and even that should be kept reasonably limited, since everyone who truly belongs in this thread is assumed to have some level of disagreement with said producers, sometimes to the point of resentment. We need not spend excessive time on blaming them for their failings, but don’t hold back your true feelings on those screw-ups either. Disagreement between rule-abiding posters is fine. Just keep it civil and within the guidelines. Or else.
Nobody is allowed to use terms like “fanboy,” “nerd,” “purist,” “hater,” or anything like that in a derogatory manner toward other posters or comic fans in general in this thread. The word "whining" and the like-- unless used with regard to a character in a movie, comic book or TV show (ex. “Spider-Man was quite the whiner...”)—is forbidden, as is “nitpicking,” and anything else intended to bully anyone into complacency and acceptance of existing products. The phrase “impossible standards” and anything to the effect of “movies and comics are different mediums, so there have to be changes,” “the general audience will not accept the same things comics fans will,” and “people want to see realism,” if not accompanied by a massive amount of faithful and potentially marketable ideas meant to compensate or work around these alleged “facts,” are also strictly forbidden.
It is okay to suggest minor deviations from the source material for this topic, as long as the majority of the ideas you put forth—or are simply replying to and agree with—are consistent with the source material and/or significantly more faithful than previous existing adaptations.
Again, it’s okay to disagree with a person’s criticism of a movie if you have another one to share, but do not post remarks about an existing or real-life upcoming film if you have no significant

I hope the guidelines are clear. Everyone is welcome to contribute or comment, as long as they follow the rules and don’t make any criticisms that are not relevant to the thread. You either belong here or you don’t, and that choice is up to you , so have respect enough to let the environment herein reflect the title of this thread.
Anyone who violates the rules or causes trouble will be promptly reported.

Thank you for your cooperation. complaints about any of the productions being discussed.


Read it and abide by it.

:wolverine

[Beelze]

I was helping you come to terms with Begins not being as unrealistic as you claim. And if you had read my post carefully you would see that I had some complaints about the movie, too. We were discussing realism, and I defended Begins' claim to realism when it came to certain things, and attacked it when it came to other things. Now, I reread the emphasized rules and could not see how I broke them, so perhaps you should give my post serious consideration instead of telling me to "talk to the hand." Now, if this is a thread about how Batman movies could be made better, and stay truer to the source material, it might be good to realize what things the previous ones did right and what they did wrong, so that one can determine what they should focus the most on when it comes in the future films.

[Herr Logan]

I was helping you come to terms with Begins not being as unrealistic as you claim. And if you had read my post carefully you would see that I had some complaints about the movie, too. We were discussing realism, and I defended Begins' claim to realism when it came to certain things, and attacked it when it came to other things. Now, I reread the emphasized rules and could not see how I broke them, so perhaps you should give my post serious consideration instead of telling me to "talk to the hand." Now, if this is a thread about how Batman movies could be made better, and stay truer to the source material, it might be good to realize what things the previous ones did right and what they did wrong, so that one can determine what they should focus the most on when it comes in the future films.

You were "helping [me] come to terms with Begins not being as unrealistic as claim"? I'm going to ignore the unforgivably condescending tone of that and get to the point: this is not the place for defending pre-existing movies, at all.

You spent the majority of your post defending a movie that several people who've discussed this agree is flawed to whatever degree, and that the widely advertised claims of "realism" are lies (most of it is in the original thread (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189562), as this spin-off is new). You didn't contribute ideas regarding a new, more faithful Batman film, and your "complaints" are moot when you qualify most of them with excuses and tell me that "nothing that really stands out." I couldn't possibly care less about what you thought was "realistic" or not or what "stood out" for you; this thread is about constructing something more faithful and overall better, and there is no specific emphasis on being "realistic." I criticized the claim of the "realism" of 'Begins' because it is completely false; end of story. Anyone who wants to argue that 'Batman Begins,' the Spider-Man movies or the X-Men movies or any other existing superhero movies were actually "realistic" in tone are not welcome to do so here, at all.

I didn't bother to respond to the rest of your arguments earlier because they are just plain invalid, and this isn't the place for that anyway. I already verified my arguments on the "realism" of 'Begins' with a credible source months ago, and I'm not here to argue with you.
As for whether it's against the rules to argue that something is "realistic" instead of arguing that it isn't faithful, that's [I]irrelevant. Why were you arguing that in the first place? What benefit is there in me knowing that you ignorantly believe something as ridiculous as the microwave emmiter's effects on humans and water or a 240 lb man using just a belt to hang from a cable being "realistic"? You argued against several criticisms of mine about how 'Batman Begins' was flawed, regardless of how it was flawed, and you didn't offer any real criticism of your own. I already established why what you consider to be your criticism is invalid, so don't pretend you don't understand. That's not acceptable behavior in here. You've got other threads where you can defend 'Begins' all you want, but here, it's forbidden to do so in the manner in which you have.

I feel really stupid right now. Why? Because I edited my initial response to you last night after considering the possibility that your original question could have been an innocent query asking my perspective, rather than a challenge for the purposes of debate. I thought my original assumption might be unfair, that I was overly harsh, and that you might actually be on board with this thread's philosophy. I was dead wrong and should have followed my gut instinct, but then again, you're the first person to go to such wordy lengths and smarmy behavior to undermine the rules of these threads. No one else has had the audacity to do this and then claim innocence so far.

I don't care how you chose to misinterpret what was plainly written as a warning to you; you are deliberately breaking the rules by defending those flaws without providing an equal or greater amount of original critical analyses or new ideas of your own. That is forbidden here. Did you get it that time? Not. Up. For. Debate.
If you want to continue this line of discussion, take it out of here and every other Safe Haven thread. That's not a request.

Either give an equal or greater amount of text containing real suggestions for a Batman movie that are strictly faithful to the comic, without subversive or resentful comments or any further words on the issue you wrongly think is up for debate, or keep silent in here. Otherwise you've broken the rules yet again and will be dealt with by a moderator. This thread probably isn't for you, as you'd know if you actually read the rules, and this is your final warning from me.

I reformatted the rules so there are nifty little bullet points dividing up the main tenets; maybe that will make it easier to read for the next person looking to provoke me in here.


:wolverine

[Zaphod]

Herr, as you requested, here's s portion of Bruce's tutlege under Kirig. Let me know what you think, with suggestions, tidbits, praise, rage, you name it (need I even ask you to do so anymore?):

ORIGIN PART 2 – BRUCE & KIRIGI

Bruce in Tibet, ascends a steep-mountain, hulking his body up the cliff-edge, climbing the towering edifice of rock and stone, making use of the vast array of equipment he has strapped about his person Next, we see Bruce rappelling up a cliff edge; he climbs the mountains ledge while utilizing an array of mountaineering equipment (chalk, carabineers, ascenders, ice-picks and axes etc). A voiceover narrates Bruce’ s journey, in which we learn of Bruce buying information and equipment to advance his expedition in locating Master Kirigi, as well as prior training garnered over the world after leaving the FBI. In this latter case, we’d actually see flashbacks to scenes of Bruce’s other worldly practises abroad, although these wouldn’t be simply thrown in at random, but would be set of by practises we see Bruce adopt in the present.

For example, Bruce would come to a point in his present journey where all the passage ahead is shrouded in bush and overgrown, with path no longer visible, we’d then cut to a scene of Bruce in Africa, we’re we see him learning ‘the right of human passage to which ordinary men are blind’, with Bruce’s movements in this scene paralleling those in the present narrative. Another scene would show Bruce hungry and tired, he see’s a tree bearing fruit high up, he takes out a sling and places a rock into it, he pelts the slingshot at the fruit above and then we cut to a scene of Bruce learning similar past-skills in bola and boomerang from Bushmen. All the while Bruce would be narrating these scenes.

Bruce now mounts a hill, overlooking a stone building of ancient design. Bruce traipses further onwards, making his way up the steps to the entrance of the castle, a monastery. Bruce reaches the large sealed doors, and stops in his tracks to regard the place. It is incredibly silent; the wind is the only audible sound. Bruce opens his satchel and takes out an ancient looking piece of scroll, this time it has illustrated a primitive but ingenious looking device, and instructions on how to operate it. Bruce looks to the door from the paper, the device is there in front of him too. It is a row of knobs, rotate able, which need to be turned to a specific point each in order to open the doors. Bruce presses and turns each of the knobs, and the doors loudly and slowly open to him.

Bruce enters a wide and stone-like chamber; he cautiously makes his way through the entrance and enters into an elegant but cold black-marble dojo like structure. He passes through this and down past a stone walkway until he reaches another open area. This time though it is occupied. Line and lines of ensemble monks peacefully appear seated, meditating. They are calm and silent, and directly ahead of them seat another monk, singularly placed upon a pedestal. There is nothing but silence. Bruce weaves in and out of the columns of monks, who are un-distracted by the visitor. Bruce attempts to get the attention of the head-monk, but fails to do so. He tries again, and again, but fails both times. Finally Bruce retreats to the entrance from where he entered. He seats himself down in the same meditation position and closes his eyes. Waiting. Biding.

We cut to Bruce in the monastery; he is worn and has his features obscured beneath a dirty, large beard. It is evident that Bruce has been solitary for a great deal of time from his physical appearance. When Bruce awakes, he is greeted by the head-monk. His name is Kirigi, and taking Bruce through the environment of his monastery, digresses to Bruce the nature of his practices here and that he will train Bruce if he so wishes. He enquires with an amused eye how Bruce came to know of the monastery, and Bruce would say something to the effect of “The secrets of ordinary men are easily bought”. When Bruce agrees to the training offered, he is presented with a broom by Master Kirigi, the bewildered Bruce is told that first he must serve the most menial and basic of tasks in order to be allowed serious and proper training. This final moment would offer a little touch of comedy to the audiences.

We now cut to a montage: We see scenes of Bruce sweeping and cleaning the monastery. He captures fish from the river and also helps prepare rice in the kitchens. He serves food and water to the monks, and is finally confronted by Kirigi who tells Bruce he can now undergo training proper.

From here, we see Kirigi take Bruce through a rigorous training off combat, ninja tactics (encompassing stealth and invisibility), and how to master explosive powders and shruiken. These scenes would be similar to those of Bruce learning from Ducard with the LOS in Begins, although they would be different enough in other areas to. Bruce would learn the use of gauntlets with Kirigi, and there would be elaboration on his use of explosive powder somewhat, mostly though the emphasis in this part of the origin would be Bruce mastering invisibility, stealth and martial arts.

In shruiken, Kirigi would first present Bruce with a single shruiken and ask Bruce to demonstrate his skill with throwing and aiming. Bruce would fire the single shruiken at one of the many wooden targets, and he hits dead on the central-eye of the target. Bruce looks to Kirigi, but the Master monk shows only the faintest of recognition. Kirigi then reveals a satchel brandishing an entire arsenal of shruiken, Kirigi then proceeds to fire of each and every one of them at the target faster than the eye can see, rotating his body as he does, firing them of from the side, front, back until all are spent. Bruce looks to the target and we follow his gaze, the wood of every target throughout the room has been practically destroyed from the shruikens, which embed themselves in each of the centre eyes of the targets. Kirigi looks at Bruce, Bruce concedes the point.

[Herr Logan]

Herr, as you requested, here's s portion of Bruce's tutlege under Kirig. Let me know what you think, with suggestions, tidbits, praise, rage, you name it (need I even ask you to do so anymore?):

ORIGIN PART 2 – BRUCE & KIRIGI

Bruce in Tibet, ascends a steep-mountain, hulking his body up the cliff-edge, climbing the towering edifice of rock and stone, making use of the vast array of equipment he has strapped about his person Next, we see Bruce rappelling up a cliff edge; he climbs the mountains ledge while utilizing an array of mountaineering equipment (chalk, carabineers, ascenders, ice-picks and axes etc). A voiceover narrates Bruce’ s journey, in which we learn of Bruce buying information and equipment to advance his expedition in locating Master Kirigi, as well as prior training garnered over the world after leaving the FBI. In this latter case, we’d actually see flashbacks to scenes of Bruce’s other worldly practises abroad, although these wouldn’t be simply thrown in at random, but would be set of by practises we see Bruce adopt in the present.

For example, Bruce would come to a point in his present journey where all the passage ahead is shrouded in bush and overgrown, with path no longer visible, we’d then cut to a scene of Bruce in Africa, we’re we see him learning ‘the right of human passage to which ordinary men are blind’, with Bruce’s movements in this scene paralleling those in the present narrative.

I'm pretty sure I sent you a PM saying that I thought we would need to see the "present-day" Batman in full costume early on and several times in between the origin sequences to better keep the audience's rapt attention, and you're accomodating that nicely. While I didn't want to make such an obvious rhythm of having an alternating order of present and past scenes that showed Bruce/Batman doing very similar things in both timelines, after reading the quoted section above, it occurred to me that we could use both the techniques he learned in his journeys and the means by which he came to learn them.

I'm probably not explaining this well at all, but bear with me. What came to my mind when you mentioned the mountain climbing was a present-day scene where the costumed Batman is ascending buildings in Gotham City as part of his patrol or even a pursuit of a specific target or targets. He would much more quickly and easily ascend buildings as the Batman than as Bruce Wayne, since he has his grapnel with retracting cable, those ninja claw thingies to put over his gloves and overall a costume built with climbing in mind (as well as many other things, of course). By using a variety of relationships between the present and past images, it comes off as slightly less formulaic. Also, there is a broader range of freedom if the flashbacks do not reflect the Batman's current thought processes; he is not remembering these things based on what he sees now, necessarily, but if the image from one moment of the present seen by the camera mirrors one moment of the past, the camera uses that as a seque to go back in time to show the audience the life of Bruce Wayne. The transition would happen very abruptly, with a distinctive effect that wipes the screen.

Some examples that immediately spring to mind:

Batman ascends by retracting the cable running from the grapnel clipped to his streamlined trunks-harness / Bruce scales mountain using ropes and various gear to reach Kirigi's monastery
Batman watches a car speed through the streets of Gotham City / Bruce at age 13 or 14 drives around a track in a race car
Batman spots some bullet shell casings on a rooftop or pavement in an alley / Bruce Wayne accompanies a member of a CSI unit and learns about obtaining forensic evidence at the crime scene and then criminalistics techniques in a crime lab
There should be some sort of trigger scene at the end of each flashback that leads back to the present as well. There wouldn't have to be a back-to-present trigger for every origin scene, though; it only needs to be broken up if there's a significant jump in time (i.e. most of the scenes where Bruce is 14 can be done consecutively without many present-scenes breaking up the sequence).

I have a question about this part:
"Bruce would come to a point in his present journey where all the passage ahead is shrouded in bush and overgrown, with path no longer visible."
Where would he be during this, exactly? Is this in Korea, where Bruce is trying to reach Kirigi?

Another scene would show Bruce hungry and tired, he see’s a tree bearing fruit high up, he takes out a sling and places a rock into it, he pelts the slingshot at the fruit above and then we cut to a scene of Bruce learning similar past-skills in bola and boomerang from Bushmen. All the while Bruce would be narrating these scenes.

Bruce now mounts a hill, overlooking a stone building of ancient design. Bruce traipses further onwards, making his way up the steps to the entrance of the castle, a monastery. Bruce reaches the large sealed doors, and stops in his tracks to regard the place. It is incredibly silent; the wind is the only audible sound. Bruce opens his satchel and takes out an ancient looking piece of scroll, this time it has illustrated a primitive but ingenious looking device, and instructions on how to operate it. Bruce looks to the door from the paper, the device is there in front of him too. It is a row of knobs, rotate able, which need to be turned to a specific point each in order to open the doors. Bruce presses and turns each of the knobs, and the doors loudly and slowly open to him.

Do those two paragraphs occur consecutively?

Bruce enters a wide and stone-like chamber; he cautiously makes his way through the entrance and enters into an elegant but cold black-marble dojo like structure. He passes through this and down past a stone walkway until he reaches another open area. This time though it is occupied. Line and lines of ensemble monks peacefully appear seated, meditating. They are calm and silent, and directly ahead of them seat another monk, singularly placed upon a pedestal. There is nothing but silence. Bruce weaves in and out of the columns of monks, who are un-distracted by the visitor. Bruce attempts to get the attention of the head-monk, but fails to do so. He tries again, and again, but fails both times. Finally Bruce retreats to the entrance from where he entered. He seats himself down in the same meditation position and closes his eyes. Waiting. Biding.

We cut to Bruce in the monastery; he is worn and has his features obscured beneath a dirty, large beard. It is evident that Bruce has been solitary for a great deal of time from his physical appearance. When Bruce awakes, he is greeted by the head-monk. His name is Kirigi, and taking Bruce through the environment of his monastery, digresses to Bruce the nature of his practices here and that he will train Bruce if he so wishes. He enquires with an amused eye how Bruce came to know of the monastery, and Bruce would say something to the effect of “The secrets of ordinary men are easily bought”. When Bruce agrees to the training offered, he is presented with a broom by Master Kirigi, the bewildered Bruce is told that first he must serve the most menial and basic of tasks in order to be allowed serious and proper training. This final moment would offer a little touch of comedy to the audiences.

Okay, I'm torn here. I like this a lot, but I don't know if it's a better idea to do this than translate 'The Man Who Falls' directly.
The major differences between the two are these:

In TMWF, Bruce doesn't venture past the lobby/foyier/entrance and instead waits for Kirigi-- whose presence he can sense-- to bid him welcome. The voiceover narration would tell, "I waited for one week, then another, then another," and with each week being mentioned, Bruce grows more beard stubble and eventually a decent beard. Your version has the camera cutting out and fading back to an indeterminate amount of time.

In TMWF, Kirigi only says, "You may sweep the floor," and doesn't explain himself, and Bruce complies. The voiceover would announce the timeframe through all of this, as Kirigi comes back a month later and says "You may wash the dishes," and after two more months, "You may boil the rice." I sort of prefer the TMWF version of these events, but we should discuss it. While I'm all for lightening the dark, depressed tone of the movie every once in a while, I think that if directed properly, Kirigi saying, "You may sweep the floor," and Bruce just giving the right look could also provide a bit of levity. Good timing, Kirigi's delivery and Bruce's facial reaction could probably sell that scene as comical. Again, we should discuss all of this.

You clearly put a lot of thought into all of this and I won't discount that or dismiss it outright. It may be the case that your way is more audience-friendly, although a lot of this will have to occur quickly so that the story doesn't drag. This hypothetical concept would be the first Batman movie that attempts to explore a wide range of educational and character-building experiences in Bruce Wayne's pre-Batman life.

We now cut to a montage: We see scenes of Bruce sweeping and cleaning the monastery. He captures fish from the river and also helps prepare rice in the kitchens. He serves food and water to the monks, and is finally confronted by Kirigi who tells Bruce he can now undergo training proper.

As long as all of this was kept very brief in terms of actual movie time, I'm all for adding the fish-capturing.

Wait... no I'm not. Where the hell is he going to find a river? He's at the top of a freakin' mountain! :confused:

From here, we see Kirigi take Bruce through a rigorous training off combat, ninja tactics (encompassing stealth and invisibility), and how to master explosive powders and shruiken. These scenes would be similar to those of Bruce learning from Ducard with the LOS in Begins, although they would be different enough in other areas to. Bruce would learn the use of gauntlets with Kirigi, and there would be elaboration on his use of explosive powder somewhat, mostly though the emphasis in this part of the origin would be Bruce mastering invisibility, stealth and martial arts.

Sounds good. I'd also add the "theatricality and deception are powerful agents" element here. The "exploding powder" basically translates to smoke bombs in the Batman's future, because when the Batman uses explosives, he's using Semtex and so forth, not units of packed gunpowder.

We should see a demonstation of Bruce throwing a small packet of exploding powder that causes a smoke screen, and he should try to disappear. It's okay to show him screwing up, if that would get a quick laugh, because in the future we will see the Batman throw a smoke grenade and disappear completely, as well as disappear without such accessories.

In shruiken, Kirigi would first present Bruce with a single shruiken and ask Bruce to demonstrate his skill with throwing and aiming. Bruce would fire the single shruiken at one of the many wooden targets, and he hits dead on the central-eye of the target. Bruce looks to Kirigi, but the Master monk shows only the faintest of recognition. Kirigi then reveals a satchel brandishing an entire arsenal of shruiken, Kirigi then proceeds to fire of each and every one of them at the target faster than the eye can see, rotating his body as he does, firing them of from the side, front, back until all are spent. Bruce looks to the target and we follow his gaze, the wood of every target throughout the room has been practically destroyed from the shruikens, which embed themselves in each of the centre eyes of the targets. Kirigi looks at Bruce, Bruce concedes the point.

That's a very cool scene, but I'm not sure I understand the point of it, the way it's set up. If this is a competition, it's not valid if Bruce only has one throwing star and Kirigi has a satchel-full. If you made it a demonstration instead of a contest, that would be fine and would look great.

Thanks very much for posting, Zaphod. I like a lot of this. :up:

Keep it comin,' and I'll try to put something cogent together on the youth era and the Batman era.

:wolverine

[MaskedManJRK]

I haven't gotten all the kinks out of the trilogy yet, but here's the basic idea for each movie to make you kiddies salavate for the real thing when it's all said and done.

BATMAN BEGINS
Yes, sounds exactly alike, but it's basically Batman starting out with Ra's al Ghul, The Scarecrow, and Carmine Falcone, and that's where the similarities end. It's a combination of Year One and Tales of the Demon, mixed in with bits of Four of a Kind, The Long Holloween, Blind Justice, Year Two, No Man's Land, and little references to the old-school 40's comics, and many more.
It would involve Bruce Wayne and Jim Gordon's battles after coming back to Gotham City and trying to deal with the corrupt government and rampant crime. The main foil within Gotham City is Carmine Falcone (a more refined and powerful version than the movie), who uses an "assassin" that runs Arkham Asylum known as Jonathon "The Scarecrow" Crane to try and snuff out Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent, and if possible, the biggest distraction and Crane's most desired catch...The Batman.
Meanwhile, Batman and the other two hear strange talks about a mysterous benefactor currently located in the Middle East known as Ra's al Ghul. We see Bruce Wayne's connection to him and his alluring daughter, Talia, and in the third act, Ra's appears in Gotham to start up a plan to break apart the current corrupt way of government by using a specially made drill to forcefully create earthquakes. In the end, Batman stops Ra's from bringing the city down, and a while later, the three meet on top of GCPD headquarters, siting them to team up since it worked for the Ra's al Ghul trouble, to bring down the head mob ruler of Gotham City--Carmine Falcone. Cue credits...with a little bit at the end, showing Ra's beaten and half-dead put into the Lazarus Pits and coming back up, his insane laugh echoing...
(Also note, in between all of this, there would be small montages of Batman starting up, taking out other super-villians, some important for the other movies, like the Red Hood and introduction to Selina Kyle/Catwoman, others more insignificant, such as Mad Hatter or Ventriloquist/Scarface)

Next up, BATMAN: THE MAN WHO LAUGHS...

[Herr Logan]

I haven't gotten all the kinks out of the trilogy yet, but here's the basic idea for each movie to make you kiddies salavate for the real thing when it's all said and done.

BATMAN BEGINS
Yes, sounds exactly alike, but it's basically Batman starting out with Ra's al Ghul, The Scarecrow, and Carmine Falcone, and that's where the similarities end. It's a combination of Year One and Tales of the Demon, mixed in with bits of Four of a Kind, The Long Holloween, Blind Justice, Year Two, No Man's Land, and little references to the old-school 40's comics, and many more.
It would involve Bruce Wayne and Jim Gordon's battles after coming back to Gotham City and trying to deal with the corrupt government and rampant crime. The main foil within Gotham City is Carmine Falcone (a more refined and powerful version than the movie), who uses an "assassin" that runs Arkham Asylum known as Jonathon "The Scarecrow" Crane to try and snuff out Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent, and if possible, the biggest distraction and Crane's most desired catch...The Batman.
Meanwhile, Batman and the other two hear strange talks about a mysterous benefactor currently located in the Middle East known as Ra's al Ghul. We see Bruce Wayne's connection to him and his alluring daughter, Talia, and in the third act, Ra's appears in Gotham to start up a plan to break apart the current corrupt way of government by using a specially made drill to forcefully create earthquakes. In the end, Batman stops Ra's from bringing the city down, and a while later, the three meet on top of GCPD headquarters, siting them to team up since it worked for the Ra's al Ghul trouble, to bring down the head mob ruler of Gotham City--Carmine Falcone. Cue credits...with a little bit at the end, showing Ra's beaten and half-dead put into the Lazarus Pits and coming back up, his insane laugh echoing...
(Also note, in between all of this, there would be small montages of Batman starting up, taking out other super-villians, some important for the other movies, like the Red Hood and introduction to Selina Kyle/Catwoman, others more insignificant, such as Mad Hatter or Ventriloquist/Scarface)

Next up, BATMAN: THE MAN WHO LAUGHS...

Sounds interesting, and very busy! This is going to end up being about 3 hours, right?

Also, Scarecrow is going to wear his costume, right?

:wolverine

[MaskedManJRK]

Sounds interesting, and very busy! This is going to end up being about 3 hours, right?

I'd try not too--the most I'd make it would be about LOTR or Harry Potter length, 2 and a half hours or so.

Also, Scarecrow is going to wear his costume, right?

Yeah, it's some-what different in my mind--it's more brown/black rags with a mask similar to Begins and a straw hat, but most of the time he'd be mostly in the shadow when people aren't under the gas, and sometimes even when they are.

I think Scarecrow is essentially this ultimate creepy voyeur stalker guy, who would more prefer to sit back and watch the show as the person under the gas slowly goes insane, giving them suggestions every once in a while to make their torture even more frightening and worse.

[Herr Logan]

Yeah, it's some-what different in my mind--it's more brown/black rags with a mask similar to Begins and a straw hat, but most of the time he'd be mostly in the shadow when people aren't under the gas, and sometimes even when they are.

I think Scarecrow is essentially this ultimate creepy voyeur stalker guy, who would more prefer to sit back and watch the show as the person under the gas slowly goes insane, giving them suggestions every once in a while to make their torture even more frightening and worse.

As long as the Scarecrow wears his costume for at least half of his total screentime, that can count as "faithful."
In the comics, that costume is very important to him and he's rarely seen out of it, so it's necessary.

My own concept for Jonathan Crane has working as a psychiatrist at Arkham, but he's not the director there. He'd be fired from there, just like at Gotham University. After that, he goes all the way nuts, starts wearing his costume almost all of the time and tries to get revenge on the whole city by poisoning the water supply after getting back at a few select targets in person.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

By the way, Zaphod, I think we should give the Batman a customized helicopter in one of the movies after the first one. While I can't see much use for a supersonic jet within the city limits, a helicopter is perfect, and he had one in the earlier comics.

If the Batman leaves the city, and especially if he travels overseas, then bring on the Batwing. For chasing cars or ascending buildings with maximum efficiency, the Batcopter!

:wolverine

[Zaphod]

By the way, Zaphod, I think we should give the Batman a customized helicopter in one of the movies after the first one. While I can't see much use for a supersonic jet within the city limits, a helicopter is perfect, and he had one in the earlier comics.

If the Batman leaves the city, and especially if he travels overseas, then bring on the Batwing. For chasing cars or ascending buildings with maximum efficiency, the Batcopter!

:wolverine

We should disscuss this in more detail, before deciding on anything. The Batwing I would definately want to see, especially in a movie with Ra's Al Ghul where Batman would be travelling away from Gotham to confront his enemy. I like the idea of the Batcopter chasing cars, though.

[kame-sennin]

I can never understand this contention that "the movies and comics are two different mediums" and I have yet to see any convincing arguments to prove it.

As someone who has studied films and comics quite extensivley (and tried to write for both) I can tell you that they are two different mediums and different rules apply. However, these rules apply specifically to things such as pacing, story length, and the use of sound. For example, when transferring between the mediums, you have to understand that the filmmaker controls the pace at which the story is told in films, whereas the reader mostly controls the pace that a story is told in comics. Additionally, action sequences should not be scripted in the same way in both comics and films as there is no movement in comics (this may seem like a big duh, but a lot of modern comic writers write there scripts as if they were meant to be filmed - perhaps because so many of them are from film and television - this, IMO leads to somewhat clunky storytelling). I can't see how the medium barrier would effect such things as costumes, and character traits. You are correct in stating that "fans" use this as an excuse. The fact is, that most of us have very little knowledge of what really "works" on film (myself included), but that doesn't mean we should take the word of (often times) hack filmmakers who refuse to try new things when they say "it can't be done". In other words, I'm agreeing with you, but I'm OCD and couldn't resist the urge to point some minor flaws in your argument.

Yah, I know how you feel. I can't help but feel that if all the changes some people want were to be done, the only things that would remain familiar would be the names...
Too many people want to change too much that is integral to the character of Batman and his world. Any talented filmmaker worth his salt would be able to stick close to the source material and still make an excellent film.


If some of the kids on the Batman forums got their way, Batman would be the punisher with batarangs.

And as far as these forums on the Hype goes, I feel that some folk just don't get Batman and could give a crap about the comics, which, in my estimation, is just worng. That's where Batman was "born" and to ignore them is to disrespect the charcters and their creators.

It bothers me that, because comics are not a respected medium, there characters are disrespected as well. If you don't respect the characters, why attempt to adapt them? I don't think it's too much to ask for filmmakers to treat comic adaptations as they would novel adaptations (although a fair amount of those get butchered too). If you don't think comics deserve that treatment, than you have no business making a film about them.

and no, Movie!R'as dying at the end of 'Begins' doesn't count as intentional or unintentional homicide by any legal definition whatsoever

Maybe not, but the real goddamn Batman would have at least tried to save Ra's:batman:

[Herr Logan]

We should disscuss this in more detail, before deciding on anything. The Batwing I would definately want to see, especially in a movie with Ra's Al Ghul where Batman would be travelling away from Gotham to confront his enemy. I like the idea of the Batcopter chasing cars, though.

Well yeah, if he's going to fly out to Tibet or wherever Ra's Al Ghul holes up, he should definitely use the Batwing.
I'm not sure where Ra's Al Ghul would go in the franchise. We didn't talk about a fourth movie yet.
We should probably see the Batcopter before we see the Batwing.

This is only an idea I've been considering, but I was thinking that the fourth one could possibly be broken up into three parts that are essentially individual, one-hour "episodes." Robin should probably be present in some capacity in at least two of them, since he'd show up in the third movie. This would be a good place to show the Scarecrow and Mr. Freeze, and possibly Ra's Al Ghul, although I'll understand if you think Ra's Al Ghul should have a full movie's length to do his thing.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

As someone who has studied films and comics quite extensivley (and tried to write for both) I can tell you that they are two different mediums and different rules apply. However, these rules apply specifically to things such as pacing, story length, and the use of sound. For example, when transferring between the mediums, you have to understand that the filmmaker controls the pace at which the story is told in films, whereas the reader mostly controls the pace that a story is told in comics. Additionally, action sequences should not be scripted in the same way in both comics and films as there is no movement in comics (this may seem like a big duh, but a lot of modern comic writers write there scripts as if they were meant to be filmed - perhaps because so many of them are from film and television - this, IMO leads to somewhat clunky storytelling). I can't see how the medium barrier would effect such things as costumes, and character traits. You are correct in stating that "fans" use this as an excuse. The fact is, that most of us have very little knowledge of what really "works" on film (myself included), but that doesn't mean we should take the word of (often times) hack filmmakers who refuse to try new things when they say "it can't be done". In other words, I'm agreeing with you, but I'm OCD and couldn't resist the urge to point some minor flaws in your argument.

That entire paragraph exemplifies why you're one of my favorite posters ever.
That last sentence exemplifies why you're a candidate for being my soul mate. You know, in a friendly way :o

If some of the kids on the Batman forums got their way, Batman would be the punisher with batarangs.


The little plebeians...

It bothers me that, because comics are not a respected medium, there characters are disrespected as well. If you don't respect the characters, why attempt to adapt them? I don't think it's too much to ask for filmmakers to treat comic adaptations as they would novel adaptations (although a fair amount of those get butchered too). If you don't think comics deserve that treatment, than you have no business making a film about them.


Amen!


Maybe not, but the real goddamn Batman would have at least tried to save Ra's:batman:

This is true. He probably would have. Then again, I get the impression that the Batman doesn't care as much if the real Ra's Al Ghul dies or not, since he's not only a global threat, but he's already lived a lot longer than any human really has the right to. He shoved a sword right through him in 'Hush,' seemingly on the chance that Ra's might be close enough to a Lazarus Pit if it was a fatal wound.

I'm not justifying the entirety of that scene, I'm just saying it doesn't count as murder. No court would convict him on that particular charge (well, maybe in Gotham City, where convictions and aquittals are for sale) as even a manslaughter charge, since saving a terrorist from that kind of situation would mean going to "heroic" measures (that term may only apply in medicine in that capacity), or "above and beyond" what citizens are expected to do. You can't expect people who aren't sworn officers to risk their lives the way the Batman did. It's certainly doesn't count as "depraved indifference" or anything similar.

Anyway, my major criticism there would be that he shouldn't have said "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."
He should have said something along the lines of "You've killed yourself." I mean, he boarded a train carrying a potential weapon of mass destruction, didn't he? If the army was there and had a clue, they'd blow away those rail supports as well if they could.

:wolverine

[kame-sennin]

That entire paragraph exemplifies why you're one of my favorite posters ever.
That last sentence exemplifies why you're a candidate for being my soul mate. You know, in a friendly way :o

Suuuure.

This is true. He probably would have. Then again, I get the impression that the Batman doesn't care as much if the real Ra's Al Ghul dies or not, since he's not only a global threat, but he's already lived a lot longer than any human really has the right to. He shoved a sword right through him in 'Hush,' seemingly on the chance that Ra's might be close enough to a Lazarus Pit if it was a fatal wound.

Good point, if Batman was ever inclined to bend his own rules, it'd be with Ra's.

I'm not justifying the entirety of that scene, I'm just saying it doesn't count as murder. No court would convict him on that particular charge (well, maybe in Gotham City, where convictions and aquittals are for sale) as even a manslaughter charge, since saving a terrorist from that kind of situation would mean going to "heroic" measures (that term may only apply in medicine in that capacity), or "above and beyond" what citizens are expected to do. You can't expect people who aren't sworn officers to risk their lives the way the Batman did. It's certainly doesn't count as "depraved indifference" or anything similar.

Yea, I know, it's that damned cumpulsive urge to argue and nitpick. Just keepin you on your toes.

Anyway, my major criticism there would be that he shouldn't have said "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."
:wolverine

I think that's my main problem with the scene. I don't blame Batman for not risking his life to save Ra's (it's arguable whether or not he would even have succeeded), I just hate that he was so damn glib about it.

[Herr Logan]

Suuuure.

How many times in a lifetime do you think a person comes along who is as fastidious and persnickety as I am? Is it wrong to treasure what's right in front of me?!

*achem* Pardon my outburst. :o

Good point, if Batman was ever inclined to bend his own rules, it'd be with Ra's.

Then again, that was me attributing that attitude toward the real Ra's, and that's not who was in that movie.

Liam Neeson was great in his role. Then again, so was Jim Carrey when he played Movie!Riddler. That doesn't mean they wrote either character correctly.
Ra's Al Ghul without Talia and Lazarous Pits is not Ra's Al Ghul. Also, he didn't call Bruce "Detective," and I do believe this is important. Ra's didn't train the Batman, he sought him out when he was already trained and established as a paragon of human potential. It's a much better story decision to have Ra's seek out Bruce as a potential heir than to have him training Bruce, as there are other characters who can be shown training Bruce. Check out Zaphod's write-up for Bruce's training in Korea in our collaborative, largely faithful adaptation.

Also, the cause Movie!Ra's was fighting for is much more appealing to me personally than the eco-terrorist bit. That doesn't excuse changing the character and plot. Hell, at least eco-terrorist Ra's had a plan that made the slightest bit of sense-- kill most of the humans and start society over with a idealistic dictatorship. Movie!Ra's battled against crime and corruption by funding criminals and using corruption to get into a position where he can destroy entire cities at a time in order to fight poverty and crime. That makes no sense. You'd still have a much better chance at battling crime if you kill 90% of the population than by driving a city's population insane with fear. Isn't news of that occurrence going to panic other cities and bring military intervention? Anyway, I know I'm spending too much time analyzing this.

Yea, I know, it's that damned cumpulsive urge to argue and nitpick. Just keepin you on your toes.

Oh, I'm very much on my toes. I'm so on my toes, I'm also on other people's toes. Maybe that's why I'm disliked far and wide. :o

I think that's my main problem with the scene. I don't blame Batman for not risking his life to save Ra's (it's arguable whether or not he would even have succeeded), I just hate that he was so damn glib about it.

I guess that could be called "glib." I never really knew what to make of that, other than a reason for the villain to die without the Batman being made an "executioner."

:wolverine

[Zev]

I think I've found a solution to the problem of having to encompass all of Bruce Wayne's training in one film and still leave time for the main plot. This solution would allow us to compress his training into a small amount of time. Follow me, everyone! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PbAlO02R5U)

[Herr Logan]

I think I've found a solution to the problem of having to encompass all of Bruce Wayne's training in one film and still leave time for the main plot. This solution would allow us to compress his training into a small amount of time. Follow me, everyone! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PbAlO02R5U)

Heh! :D

Thank you, Zev. That solves our problem perfectly. :up:

:wolverine

[MaskedManJRK]

I think I've found a solution to the problem of having to encompass all of Bruce Wayne's training in one film and still leave time for the main plot. This solution would allow us to compress his training into a small amount of time. Follow me, everyone! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PbAlO02R5U)

:D:up:

[The Batman]

I'm still tryting to think of a good idea for a bat movie...

But I'll tell you this much: It wont be like begins, spending an hour on how Batman got everything. Sure, the origin, and the training will still be there, but how he built the batmobile, found the cave, etc. The thing i liked about the 1989 movie was how mysterious Batman was, and begins kinda demystified the character. Also, I feel both Batman and Superman are so ingrained in our culture that we dont need hour long origin tales.

[Herr Logan]

I'm still tryting to think of a good idea for a bat movie...

But I'll tell you this much: It wont be like begins, spending an hour on how Batman got everything. Sure, the origin, and the training will still be there, but how he built the batmobile, found the cave, etc. The thing i liked about the 1989 movie was how mysterious Batman was, and begins kinda demystified the character. Also, I feel both Batman and Superman are so ingrained in our culture that we dont need hour long origin tales.

I know what you mean about 'demystifying' the character.

The collaboration Zaphod and I are working on would, as you probably know, spend a big chunk of time on Bruce's origin and reveal some details, but it wouldn't make a big deal over the discovery of the cave (he already knows it's there from when he was a kid, and all he needs to say is "I have wealth. The family manor rests above a huge cave that will be the perfect headquarters... even a bulter with training in combat medicine," straight from 'Year One,' of course), wouldn't show Bruce finding an already-put-together bodysuit at WayneTech (he'd order or otherwise acquire and custom-tailor all the separate components for a large stockpile of lightly armored, cloth, faithful-looking Batsuits, and wouldn't have the Batmobile handed to him on a silver platter (he'd use an luxury car as the base-- some fancy model of Infinity that my mother got recently, with GPS, keyless entry, and other cool features that befit a crimefighter-- and supe it up himself). The gas cannisters and some other gear will come from a company warehouse that ships equipment to the military.

The main differences between our story and 'Begins' is that ours would show him acquiring most of his prominent skills (not just physical combat and how to handle yourself while on hallucinogens), feature the real Carmine Falcone (not that laughable parody from 'Begins') and the extent of his relationship to the GCPD, and focuses heavily on the psychology of Bruce Wayne ('Begins' did not do this in a serious fashion at all). When I say 'focus on psychology,' I don't mean putting out some pretentious, boring crap like Ang Lee's 'Hulk'; I mean show Bruce as a child actually turning into the Batman before he's even 14 years old, and showing more directly how the trauma of losing his parents catalyzed Bruce into adopting a mostly joyless, obsessive, methodical existence that will serve him well as a grim protector of the night. There's no R'as Al Ghul spouting rhetoric at him or any other profound philosophical epiphanies that change his destiny between ages 8 and 26-- it's just Bruce gets scared by bats, Mommy and Daddy get killed, Bruce fails to effectively neutralize some criminals and then sees a bat that gives him an idea for a totemic symbol. Everything in between is basically Rocky Balboa hitting the bag and running up the steps, except hopefully much, much cooler. Flip-flop the timelines a bit to keep the origin from getting stale, and it should be quite entertaining if its done correctly.

The other major difference is that the Waynes' killer is never caught, and there is no vital connection from the past between the Batman and any supervillains or major crime bosses.

By the way, Zaphod: the last scene of Movie 1 should be D.A. Harvey Dent, the newly promoted Captain James Gordon and the Batman meeting by the newly created Bat-signal and vowing to take down Carmine Falcone and the rest of the major crime bosses currently plaguing Gotham. The Joker doesn't really need an intro at the end of the first movie (maybe there will be some symbolic omen that the audience will catch, but not a calling card or threat), and if he doesn't have one, that leaves more options open for how he's introduced in the second movie.

:wolverine

[The Batman]

Also, i'd drop all this focus on realism. everyone seems to be using it as an excuse to do some real storytelling.

[Herr Logan]

Also, i'd drop all this focus on realism. everyone seems to be using it as an excuse to do some real storytelling.

I assume you mean "using it as an excuse not to do some real storytelling," and I agree to a certain extent.

Personally, I like it when certain aspects of the history or reoccurring elements of a superhero saga can be flavored with "realistic" interpretations, when it does not subvert or supplant those original aspects.

I'm in favor of the design of Movie!Ock's new tentacle harness in 'Spider-Man 2' (not the inhibitor chip bull*****, but the rest of it) and the explanation for the existence of the Goblin Formula and some of Osborn's gear in 'Spider-Man,' because those alterations make sense and don't detract from the fantastic nature of the story. I'm okay with Daredevil having a "sonar sense" instead of a "radar sense." Those are probably the only "updates for the sake of realism" I actually like about recent comic book movies. Pretty much everything else is complete bull*****.

Many people seem to hold the opinion that the Batman is the most "realistic" popular superhero, "because anybody could be him." That's not even the least bit true. It's not "anybody" who could be the Batman, and even if someone fit the right profile, he still couldn't keep it going as long as the Batman has and succeed as many times. Sam Spade is a "realistic" protagonist. Batman isn't. There's no reason to strip the story of all fantastic elements. Oh, wait, there is a reason. These simpering cowards who dare call themselves "fans" are shamed that they're into costumed superheroes, and the further from "spandex" these franchises go, the less the cowards feel ashamed. Maybe they should find a new genre for which to claim "fanhood."

I think that some realism is important to a modern Batman story, but it's a specific kind of realism-- criminology and psychology. I want to hear some stuff that actually sounds like the writers know what they're talking about. In 'Batman Begins,' Bruce travelled the world, hanging out with criminals to learn about how they think. In the comics, the Batman learned from some real scumbags, but he also formally studied criminology. I want a Batman story that deals with some real psychology, not the kind of fluffy crap we got in 'Hulk' where repressed trauma and emotional reserve somehow = Hulk. I don't even remember if they mentioned multiple personality disorder, but they sure as hell didn't mention that David Banner was regularly abusive to his wife and son, so that's a huge piece that's missing right there. Anyway, I think you know what I'm saying. I want to see some real theories being tossed around, not bland hearsay passed off as "deep, psychological drama" or bull***** pseudoscience being passed off as "realism."

:wolverine

[The Batman]

Exactly.

Man, i want the Gotham City of the comics. I want an old school Batmobile, not a tank. I want the things that make Batman...welll, Batman

The funny part is, i bet the general audience dosent give that much of a damn about realism

[kame-sennin]

How many times in a lifetime do you think a person comes along who is as fastidious and persnickety as I am? Is it wrong to treasure what's right in front of me?!

*achem* Pardon my outburst. :o

Pardoned:)

Ra's didn't train the Batman, he sought him out when he was already trained and established as a paragon of human potential. It's a much better story decision to have Ra's seek out Bruce as a potential heir than to have him training Bruce, as there are other characters who can be shown training Bruce.

That bumed me out the most about Begins Ra's.

I guess that could be called "glib." I never really knew what to make of that, other than a reason for the villain to die without the Batman being made an "executioner."

:wolverine

I was fumbling for the right word, but basically you're right. It's the filmmakers sitting on the fence between giving the audience the mindless cathartacism they've come to expect from an action film, and not completley betraying a character who is obviously against killing.

[kame-sennin]

Many people seem to hold the opinion that the Batman is the most "realistic" popular superhero, "because anybody could be him." That's not even the least bit true.
:wolverine

This pisses me off so much. Half the actors who've played Batman and probably all of the directors (Nolan included) keep pawning off this non-sense about Batman being an "every-man", or someone anyone can work hard to be. Bull****. Bruce Wayne, were he real, would be one of the most exceptional human beings to ever walk the earth. His combination of genius-level intellect, the potential for an amazing physique (not everybody is 6,2 with broad shoulders), and a slightly warped phsycology that makes for a perfectly obssesed personality, seperates him from most of humanity. And that's not even counting his wealth. Christopher Nolan actually said that Batman is just a guy who does a lot of push-ups, it's absolute rubbish.

[Herr Logan]

Pardoned:)

*stops holding breath*

Oh, thank God!


That bumed me out the most about Begins Ra's.


Me, too. I feel like he was wasted as a villain, even though Liam Neeson was excellent in the role written for him. Like I said, Jim Carey's performance in 'Batman Forever' was excellent as well, but only in the context of a character who isn't really the Riddler.


I was fumbling for the right word, but basically you're right. It's the filmmakers sitting on the fence between giving the audience the mindless cathartacism they've come to expect from an action film, and not completley betraying a character who is obviously against killing.


Indeed. Well, at least they came up with something, rather than just have the Batman kill. That's not much, but if they had gone the other way, I wouldn't have seen 'Batman Begins' at least four times in the theaters (I forget if I went a fifth time).

Let me say that I've never seen a superhero movie that many times in the theaters before, and I probably never will again. When I criticize this movie, I want people to realize that I liked it very much and thought it was good. The more I analyze it and imagine something more faithful, 'Batman Begins' looks worse, but I don't think my opinion of it will fall below "mediocre," like the Spider-Man movies. Anyway, this is why I have no qualms about insulting the integrity and/or intelligence of rabid Hollywood apologists who tell me (they dare to tell me!!) that I "hate" these movies, or "hate everything." I don't hate 'Begins,' I just know it could have been much, much better and much more representative of its source material.

This pisses me off so much. Half the actors who've played Batman and probably all of the directors (Nolan included) keep pawning off this non-sense about Batman being an "every-man", or someone anyone can work hard to be. Bull****. Bruce Wayne, were he real, would be one of the most exceptional human beings to ever walk the earth. His combination of genius-level intellect, the potential for an amazing physique (not everybody is 6,2 with broad shoulders), and a slightly warped phsycology that makes for a perfectly obssesed personality, seperates him from most of humanity. And that's not even counting his wealth. Christopher Nolan actually said that Batman is just a guy who does a lot of push-ups, it's absolute rubbish.

I don't remember actually seeing Nolan or anyone attached to a Batman film declare Batman an "everyman" character, but then again I have an unreliable memory and haven't doggedly pursued interviews and so forth. I'll take your word for it.
I was actually talking about the plebeians on these boards who use the Batman's non-metahuman status as an excuse to demand "realism," but if directors and actors in Batman films think he's an everyman, then that just disgusts me to no end. The Batman is unique for the reasons you've stated and many more. As far as we know, there aren't real-life Batmen out there, for whatever reason, people who go through what young Bruce Wayne went through don't adopt a costumed identity and fight crime; again, at least as far as we know at this point.

Hell, even one of my psychology professors (or whomever designed his PowerPoint lecture presentations) knows that Batman is removed from most of society, and I have no idea if he ever picked up a comic in his life. The slides he shows us usually have pictures that somehow reflect the current topic (usually something that provokes an amused reaction), and when he talked to the class briefly about schizoid personality disorder, there was a picture of Christian Bale as Batman from the scene in which he's walking down the hall at Arkham Asylum. No one said anything about the picture, but it made perfect sense to me and I decided to include that term as a possible partial diagnosis of Bruce Wayne in Zaphod's and my Batman movie concept. Schizoid disorder causes people to show very little interest in social interaction or close relationships, and a low sex drive. The Batman may or may not fit the description, and it's hard to tell, since he's very good at faking social aptitude. Either way, he does show symptoms of those kind of highly avoidant behavior patterns, and that in itself makes him removed from the majority of society. Sure, anybody with some good genetic advantages can try to push their skills to the limits and be all they can be, but they still wouldn't be truly similar to the Batman, unless they experienced the exact same kind of trauma and reacted in the exact same kind of way. The Batman is a real a$$hole when it comes to his peers, and that's not considered far and wide an "everyman" quality, even if people like myself know that most people are a$$holes in one way or another.

Anyway, long rant cut short, people who think that are full of *****. Hell, I already proved in another thread that Peter Parker wasn't an "everyman" archetype. I honestly can't believe someone would actually use that term and attribute it to the Batman.

:wolverine

[kame-sennin]

I don't think I've heard anyone specifically use the term "everyman", but I destinctly remeber Christopher Nolan state that:

"Batman is just a guy who does a lot of push-ups"

when he was explaining to the interviewer how Batman differs from Superman and other heroes. That quote alone shows Nolan's servere mis-understanding of the character.

[Herr Logan]

I don't think I've heard anyone specifically use the term "everyman", but I destinctly remeber Christopher Nolan state that:

"Batman is just a guy who does a lot of push-ups"

when he was explaining to the interviewer how Batman differs from Superman and other heroes. That quote alone shows Nolan's servere mis-understanding of the character.

I can forgive that if he's just making a hyperbolic simplification (is that an oxymoron?) about how the Batman acquired his physical prowess, but if that's supposed to sum up the entirety of the Batman's preparation for crime-fighting, then he's a God damn idiot. If he'd said that he "does a lot of push-ups and reads a lot of text books" or something to that effect, I could take that in stride and possibly not too literally, but after hearing that the second movie is going to emphasize how Bruce Wayne is the dominant persona and that the Joker's role will be "small and mysterious," I don't trust him to understand any of these character at all.

:wolverine

[Zev]

Christopher Nolan actually said that Batman is just a guy who does a lot of push-ups, it's absolute rubbish.

I think that was Conan O'Brien.

[Zaphod]

I'm pretty sure I sent you a PM saying that I thought we would need to see the "present-day" Batman in full costume early on and several times in between the origin sequences to better keep the audience's rapt attention, and you're accomodating that nicely. While I didn't want to make such an obvious rhythm of having an alternating order of present and past scenes that showed Bruce/Batman doing very similar things in both timelines, after reading the quoted section above, it occurred to me that we could use both the techniques he learned in his journeys and the means by which he came to learn them.

I'm probably not explaining this well at all, but bear with me. What came to my mind when you mentioned the mountain climbing was a present-day scene where the costumed Batman is ascending buildings in Gotham City as part of his patrol or even a pursuit of a specific target or targets. He would much more quickly and easily ascend buildings as the Batman than as Bruce Wayne, since he has his grapnel with retracting cable, those ninja claw thingies to put over his gloves and overall a costume built with climbing in mind (as well as many other things, of course). By using a variety of relationships between the present and past images, it comes off as slightly less formulaic. Also, there is a broader range of freedom if the flashbacks do not reflect the Batman's current thought processes; he is not remembering these things based on what he sees now, necessarily, but if the image from one moment of the present seen by the camera mirrors one moment of the past, the camera uses that as a seque to go back in time to show the audience the life of Bruce Wayne. The transition would happen very abruptly, with a distinctive effect that wipes the screen.

Some examples that immediately spring to mind:
Batman ascends by retracting the cable running from the grapnel clipped to his streamlined trunks-harness / Bruce scales mountain using ropes and various gear to reach Kirigi's monastery
Batman watches a car speed through the streets of Gotham City / Bruce at age 13 or 14 drives around a track in a race car
Batman spots some bullet shell casings on a rooftop or pavement in an alley / Bruce Wayne accompanies a member of a CSI unit and learns about obtaining forensic evidence at the crime scene and then criminalistics techniques in a crime labI'm open to this idea if it makes the movie an overall more enjoyable and accesible experience, however, how are we to adapt it? As I understand it, there are already two interweaving timeline's, like in the 'Begins', with Bruce travelling the world training, and a younger, teenage Bruce growing up in Gotham up until he's "around-the-world" sojourn. To introduce a third, with Bruce as Batman paralelling the training sequences, wont this make things far to complicated? In fact, I'm fairly sure it would be near incoherent to the audience to have three seperate timelines going on at the same time, even if it is only for the first hour. There is the option of getting condensing one, as you previously suggested, having the training sequences as a sereis of 'hit-and-miss' scenes, but I really do not like this idea.

I have a question about this part:
"Bruce would come to a point in his present journey where all the passage ahead is shrouded in bush and overgrown, with path no longer visible."
Where would he be during this, exactly? Is this in Korea, where Bruce is trying to reach Kirigi?
Yes.

Do those two paragraphs occur consecutively?
Yes, switching back and forth between both particular scenarios.

Okay, I'm torn here. I like this a lot, but I don't know if it's a better idea to do this than translate 'The Man Who Falls' directly.
The major differences between the two are these:

In TMWF, Bruce doesn't venture past the lobby/foyier/entrance and instead waits for Kirigi-- whose presence he can sense-- to bid him welcome. The voiceover narration would tell, "I waited for one week, then another, then another," and with each week being mentioned, Bruce grows more beard stubble and eventually a decent beard. Your version has the camera cutting out and fading back to an indeterminate amount of time.
Keep in mind though, that between the camera cutting from Bruce sitting down to wait in the foyier for the first time, to when we next see him fully bearded, we'd see scenes of young Bruce in Gotham.

In TMWF, Kirigi only says, "You may sweep the floor," and doesn't explain himself, and Bruce complies. The voiceover would announce the timeframe through all of this, as Kirigi comes back a month later and says "You may wash the dishes," and after two more months, "You may boil the rice." I sort of prefer the TMWF version of these events, but we should discuss it. While I'm all for lightening the dark, depressed tone of the movie every once in a while, I think that if directed properly, Kirigi saying, "You may sweep the floor," and Bruce just giving the right look could also provide a bit of levity. Good timing, Kirigi's delivery and Bruce's facial reaction could probably sell that scene as comical. Again, we should discuss all of this.
Well, sure Kirigi can say that, but I dont really think it's neccesary to show him keep coming back to Bruce at regular intervals telling him his next task. I'm not against the idea, but the montage of scenes involving Bruce doing minor errands about the monastery before he begins his training, should be very short and to the point, I wouldn't want to dwell on it.

Sounds good. I'd also add the "theatricality and deception are powerful agents" element here. The "exploding powder" basically translates to smoke bombs in the Batman's future, because when the Batman uses explosives, he's using Semtex and so forth, not units of packed gunpowder.

We should see a demonstation of Bruce throwing a small packet of exploding powder that causes a smoke screen, and he should try to disappear. It's okay to show him screwing up, if that would get a quick laugh, because in the future we will see the Batman throw a smoke grenade and disappear completely, as well as disappear without such accessories.
In terms of using fear, theatricality and deception as powerful agents in his war on crime, I was thinking of having the idea of this to come from Bruce himself later on, when he gets back to Gotham. He would have already studied and practiced psychological, offensive and meditative arts, and through his own sharp-mind (influenced in part by the realisation that he cant fight crime as a mere man when he takes a bullet in his first night out), comes up with the idea to be theatrical himself, rather than being told to by a mentor.

That's a very cool scene, but I'm not sure I understand the point of it, the way it's set up. If this is a competition, it's not valid if Bruce only has one throwing star and Kirigi has a satchel-full. If you made it a demonstration instead of a contest, that would be fine and would look great.
It was a demonstration. Eventually, Bruce will be able to do the same, and we'll show it.

[Herr Logan]

I'm open to this idea if it makes the movie an overall more enjoyable and accesible experience, however, how are we to adapt it? As I understand it, there are already two interweaving timeline's, like in the 'Begins', with Bruce travelling the world training, and a younger, teenage Bruce growing up in Gotham up until he's "around-the-world" sojourn. To introduce a third, with Bruce as Batman paralelling the training sequences, wont this make things far to complicated? In fact, I'm fairly sure it would be near incoherent to the audience to have three seperate timelines going on at the same time, even if it is only for the first hour. There is the option of getting condensing one, as you previously suggested, having the training sequences as a sereis of 'hit-and-miss' scenes, but I really do not like this idea.

I think it's possible to make it just two timelines that switch between the past (beginning with Bruce at age 6 at his home in Gotham County-- Timeline 2) and present (Bruce at age 26, in his Batman costume, patrolling and/or hunting in Gotham City-- Timeline 1). Each timeline will be shown in chronological order, alternating with scenes of the other timeline, which is also in chronilogical order. This will allow the audience to see the Batman in all his glory (or most of his glory, if he keeps to the shadows), and also follow his history, until Timeline 2 catches up to Timeline 1, and from then on, there's only one timeline. Each scene switch will be noted with a caption that tells the location and the relative time (ex. "Gotham City, Today;" "Wayne Manor, 20 Years Ago;" "Paektu-San Mountains, Korea, 6 Years Ago," etc.).

The first time-switch would happen when the camera pans around the Batman (Timeline 1), standing among some gargoyles on a high ledge, and zooms in on the bat-insignia on his chest until the whole screen is black. The darkness is broken when young Bruce falls through some boards or just rotted ground at the top of the massive bat cave under the manor, with the camera pointing up from the floor directly below this new opening (Timeline 2). Then, when Bruce tries to get back up, one bat flies out of the darkness and perches on a rock in front of him, staring ominously. Then, hundreds of bats fly out and swarm him, and he freaks out.

I'm trying to think of what happens next. One option is to let Timeline 2 run for a while, moving on to Alfred or Thomas Wayne bringing Bruce out of the cave, then onto Bruce asking his parents emphatically to take him into Gotham City to see a special, late showing of 'The Mark of Zorro,' then onto what happens after the Wayne's leave the Monarch Theater, then back to Timeline 1, the visual cue being either the theater (which switches to its present, condemned condition) or a nearby alley on Park Row (switches to the present, where it's much more sketchy looking). That idea may not work, and it's not finished, but let me know what you think about all that.

Keep in mind though, that between the camera cutting from Bruce sitting down to wait in the foyier for the first time, to when we next see him fully bearded, we'd see scenes of young Bruce in Gotham.

That's an option. It doesn't have to be that way, though.

Well, sure Kirigi can say that, but I dont really think it's neccesary to show him keep coming back to Bruce at regular intervals telling him his next task. I'm not against the idea, but the montage of scenes involving Bruce doing minor errands about the monastery before he begins his training, should be very short and to the point, I wouldn't want to dwell on it.

It would take less than a minute to show the whole thing if we did it that way, probably.

In terms of using fear, theatricality and deception as powerful agents in his war on crime, I was thinking of having the idea of this to come from Bruce himself later on, when he gets back to Gotham. He would have already studied and practiced psychological, offensive and meditative arts, and through his own sharp-mind (influenced in part by the realisation that he cant fight crime as a mere man when he takes a bullet in his first night out), comes up with the idea to be theatrical himself, rather than being told to by a mentor.

Considering all he's seen and learned, I think it's a given that someone basically told him that. He doesn't have to mention who told it to him, though, and the movie doesn't have to show it.

It was a demonstration. Eventually, Bruce will be able to do the same, and we'll show it.

Ah. Okay, cool :up:

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

Is it wrong that I actually think I would cast David Boreanaz ('Angel')as the Batman in my movie franchise, if he could still play 20-26 when filming started?

Before you rip me to shreds, check out the first season of 'Angel.' He's so much less annoying and so much more entertaining in that show than he was on 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' (except in the second season when he was evil... Angelus owns all as a wise-cracking, ruthless villain).
Angel was clearly influenced by post-Crisis Batman in many ways, which is why I think he could do it although that wasn't the sole inspiration for his behavior, of course. What I want is an actor who can act the part (although that could just as easily be an unknown... the audition is the only thing that counts, not which actors anybody has heard of beforehand) and also looks the part. He's got the right body for Batman (or he did when his show was on, even though he grew somewhat heavier as time went on, which is manageable in the movie business), and I know he can handle all the acting required, including voice (although he'd have to sound younger than he is for Bruce Wayne in his 20's) and holding a grim, stoic expression on his face for long periods of time. I'd have to do a poll to see if the majority of a large sample of females thought that he, in a picture where he's acting shallow and friendly (Angel did quite a bit of acting in the course of the show, and he's taken on behavior similar to the Public Bruce persona ), could easily look like a handsome young playboy. That's pretty much the only qualm I'd have, since that protruding brow of his makes him something other than average when it comes to pretty-boy faces.

I'll reiterate from the orignal thread: Angelina Jolie is my Catwoman. She looks perfect for the part, and we've already seen her play femme fatales that ooz sex appeal. Tell her to switch from bemused, smug and playful to angry, distrustful and violent in several scenes, and that's the perfect Catwoman.

Since this franchise starts off in Year One, I would definitely have Alfred be 50 at the oldest and black hair in the style/form it is in the comics. This would be the first live-action Alfred to actually have the right color hair from Post-Crisis Batman comics. So yeah, Michael Caine wouldn't be cast for that. The character would definitely also have an accent that is much different from Caine's, as his was a lower-class accent. I'm not saying that would bar him from being cast, as any good actor can take on a new accent, I'm just forming an image for what the character would be like.

More later.

:wolverine

[Zev]

I'm sorry, but Angel already IS Batman. And Spike is Dick Grayson. Because they were partners for a little bit, then Spike rebelled, then they both got back together to fight evil... I mean, we already know that Joss Whedon was inspired by Kitty Pryde to create Buffy, who's to say Angel isn't Batman?

And would that mean that on Angel The Series, Doyle is Alfred? And Connor is Jason Todd? Oy, somebody stop me, because this is getting freaky...

[Herr Logan]

I'm sorry, but Angel already IS Batman. And Spike is Dick Grayson. Because they were partners for a little bit, then Spike rebelled, then they both got back together to fight evil... I mean, we already know that Joss Whedon was inspired by Kitty Pryde to create Buffy, who's to say Angel isn't Batman?

And would that mean that on Angel The Series, Doyle is Alfred? And Connor is Jason Todd? Oy, somebody stop me, because this is getting freaky...

Zev, Spike is absolutely nothing like Dick Grayson, regardless of them splitting up and reuniting. Sometimes you take this "darken it up" thing waaay too far.
If someone portrayed Robin or Nightwing as being anything like Spike, I'd condemn it daily until I was dead.

Doyle is nothing like Alfred, either. If there had to be a match for most similarities between the two universes, Giles is Alfred's analogue.
Instead of Doyle, it was supposed to be that annoying little twerp named Whistler who showed up on Buffy at some point just to briefly piss me off with cryptic bull***** and his stupid hat. For whatever reason (possibly because they couldn't get that actor at the time), Whistler wasn't on Angel so they filled the position with Becky Connor's husband as Doyle.
I'm not even going to go into the Jason Todd thing. *shakes head*

Buffy must have been vaguely based on Kitty Pryde, since Kitty was never as annoying as Buffy. I was going to say she was closer to Willow, but that's only in terms of her skills (with computers), not her personality.

In the commentary, Joss Whedon described a particular move or gesture in the pilot episode of 'Angel' as Batman-like. It might have been where he uses a grappling hook.

In any Batman adaptation, the Batman persona should only be similar to Angel in the scenes where he's solemn, brooding, and when he's intimidating someone, except when he's with Alfred alone. And superior fighting skills, of course. Angel's deadpan humor sometimes seems like it would be appropriate for the Batman, and when Angel pretends to be someone else, it's often a goofy, friendly person he's portraying. The first thing we see on 'Angel' is the titular character pretending to be drunk off his ass, and in an instant, when he sees a vampire (or several... I forget) escort a woman out of the bar, he drops the facade and gets down to business.

I certainly wouldn't base a large amount of content in a Batman franchise on Whedon's trademark style. Except some of the villains, but still, I wouldn't replicate other characters under a different name, I'd be adapting the characters for which all of them are named, respectively. Maybe some
of Angel's "undercover" personas for Bruce Wayne, but not for the most part.

And no, before you say it, I would not make Catwoman act like Faith, and I wouldn't even want Eliza Dushku playing the part. She's all manner of attractive, but she doesn't strike me as the right choice.


Jeez... you mention one actor who plays a character in a well-known and completely different fictional universe, and it just snowballs out of control...

:wolverine

[Zev]

I'm just saying the relationship between Spike and Angel is kinda this weird, mirror universe, goateed version of Bruce and Dick's partnership, plus or minus a couple hundred years, a love triangle or two, and lots of raping and pillaging. But other than that...

[LongDong]

I'm just saying the relationship between Spike and Angel is kinda this weird, mirror universe, goateed version of Bruce and Dick's partnership, plus or minus a couple hundred years, a love triangle or two, and lots of raping and pillaging. But other than that...

lol. nice avatar dude

[Herr Logan]

I'm just saying the relationship between Spike and Angel is kinda this weird, mirror universe, goateed version of Bruce and Dick's partnership, plus or minus a couple hundred years, a love triangle or two, and lots of raping and pillaging. But other than that...

Spike only seemed like he was following Angel. Spike followed Drusilla, whom followed Angel. Spike couldn't have cared less about him.

Dick Grayson was taken in by Bruce Wayne, with no parent figure in between, and respected him, regardless of his eventual departure from the Batcave.

In other words, they're absolutely nothing alike.

:wolverine

[Cullen]

Sigh. Nothing to see here. Please move along.

[Herr Logan]

Sigh. Nothing to see here. Please move along.

What the hell does that mean, exactly?

:wolverine

[Cullen]

What the hell does that mean, exactly?

:wolverineIt means that God has spared you from another bit of Cullen's "wit". Be thankful that only I have to deal with it on a full time basis...:(

[Herr Logan]

It means that God has spared you from another bit of Cullen's "wit". Be thankful that only I have to deal with it on a full time basis...:(

Are you saying you attempted a contribution to the thread and then aborted it?

:wolverine

[Zev]

And no, before you say it, I would not make Catwoman act like Faith, and I wouldn't even want Eliza Dushku playing the part. She's all manner of attractive, but she doesn't strike me as the right choice.

Of course not! Don't be silly!

Faith is obviously Huntress.

[Herr Logan]

Of course not! Don't be silly!

Faith is obviously Huntress.

Touche' :o

:wolverine

[Cullen]

Are you saying you attempted a contribution to the thread and then aborted it?

:wolverineNot abort. Sanction. I sanctioned my post. With extreme predjudice. It had it coming. Practically begged for it, even.

Really, it's no big deal. No one missed out on anything of value.

[Herr Logan]

Not abort. Sanction. I sanctioned my post. With extreme predjudice. It had it coming. Practically begged for it, even.

Really, it's no big deal. No one missed out on anything of value.

Thank you for sharing, Cullen.


Feel free to post on topic any month now!

:wolverine

[Cullen]

Thank you for sharing, Cullen.


Feel free to post on topic any month now!

:wolverineSorry, sorry. My head hasn't been in the comic game for a bit. Will try to do better.

[Herr Logan]

Sorry, sorry. My head hasn't been in the comic game for a bit. Will try to do better.

Damn right, you will!

Now go stand in the corner and remember this: if you can't say anything constructive or entertaining, shut yer word-hole! :mad:

:wolverine

[Cullen]

Damn right, you will!

Now go stand in the corner and remember this: if you can't say anything constructive or entertaining, shut yer word-hole! :mad:

:wolverineI can say plenty that's entertaining. Trouble is, it's usually self entertaining...

[Herr Logan]

I still have yet to post the list of collected links that bring you to the posts that discuss the video game concept 'Batman: Dark Knight Detective' in the original Safe Haven thread (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189562). I didn't post it in the beginning of this thread because it's much longer than the list of posts about Batman movies. I'll try to do that in the next couple of days.

In any case, I've been thinking a lot about my X-Men video game concept and how it could be adapted to compliment my X-Men movie franchise (both can be found in this thread (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=232429), in the initial post and then towards the end. The same could be done for the Batman franchise Zaphod and I are slowly working on together.

'Batman: Dark Knight Detective' is a game concept that would fully immerse the player in the life of the Batman in as many aspects as possible. It would be both free-roaming and detailed (remember, it would, if ever, be produced years from now, when gaming technology would be even more advanced), with a fully explorable (is that even a word??) Gotham City (which is an island) as well as a sizable chunk of Gotham County (the area across the river/bay on the mainland, where Wayne Manor actually is) and the surrounding water. All the major locations in the Batman's world (except for the JLA Watchtower) would be available. A stealth/shadow dynamic no less advanced than the 'Splinter Cell' games would be a major part of it as well.

The subtitle actually states the three major components of the game that you'll be graded on:
Dark: The Batman's brand of stealth, characteristic theatricality and the ability to strike fear into the hearts of superstitious, cowardly criminals, both through his frightful reputation and his actions during an encounter. It also relates to his ability to keep his secret identity secret throughout the stages where the player plays as Civilian Bruce Wayne and Alfred Pennyworth.
Knight: The Batman's effectiveness in his mission to protect the innocent and defeat and capture the guilty, based on his skill and aptitude with martial arts, weaponry, gadgets and various physical skills and maneuvers used in his routine as a dynamic and athletic vigilante (such as getting around, either by car, on foot, on a grapnel cable, etc.).
Detective: The Batman's full range of detection skills, including crime scene investigation, laboratory analysis of forensic evidence, obtaining information through a variety of methods (including surveillance, computer research and hacking, creating and maintaining a relationship with confidential criminal informants and police contacts, and interrogation through physical and psychological coersion), following clues and leads, disguise and impersonation, and his success rates and proportions at progressing and closing open cases.If this vision were realized, I would seriously consider it one of the most amazing works of art in human history so far. It would be unspeakably complex and engaging, and it would provide a true Bat-fan hours and hours and hours (and on top of that, hour and hours) of mystery, action and dramatic entertainment. It would also be very in-depth and challenging at times (or just time-consuming, depending on how adept you are at virtual detection), and could, after game completion, potentially leave a player someone who desperately wants to be a detective in real life, or someone who never wants to even think about crime-solving again or even hear about shows like 'CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.'

The biggest way in which this game would differ from comics, novels, TV shows, movies and any other medium of storytelling is that the story would unfold completely from the first-person perspectives of the Batman, Robin and Alfred Pennyworth. Let me be clear about this: when I say "first person perspective," I am only talking about the story content to which you are privy throughout the game; I am not saying that this game would be a first-person shooter. Anybody who would even consider making first-person shooter Batman game should be executed for their ignorance, so yeah, that's not what I'm saying. What that basically means is that, unless you are actually at the scene to witness it, you will not see any scenes in which villains and various third parties are planning or committing crimes or other actions, until you learn enough to put the pieces together. That means you won't see a villain in his hideout ranting about the Batman or Commissioner Gordon or how the food in Arkham Asylum is so terrible, unless you are sneaking around in the hideout itself, or have placed a listening device in a place where it would pick up such dialogue, or have either formed a theory or definitively deduced what that villain has done, will do, is currently doing, or would do under certain circumstances. The more you learn from clues, intelligence, forced or voluntary confessions, etc. the more third-person scenes of dramatic irony (that means the audience knows something about one character in the story that another character doesn't know about that character) you get to see. This is somewhat awkward, I know, but it would preserve the detective aspects and force you to figure out pretty much everything, unless clues and information happen to fall into your lap (which happens sometimes). The reason why it's awkward isn't that you don't get the information before you're supposed to, but that these types of scenes don't just show pertinent information, but dramatic/comedic content stemming from the personalities and mannerisms of the characters being portrayed. This could be considered a bit of a distortion of what the Batman is likely to imagine happening in context, even though he is quite knowledgable of many of these enemies and criminals. I'd be willing to live with that, even though the "realism" of that dynamic is altered by the influence of the "omniscient narrator" who wrote and programmed those story pieces.

I wanted the game to offer the option of watching the entirety of saved progress (as in all your failed attempts that result in restarting from a save point are not included) all the way through as a movie (more like a miniseries, actually... a very long miniseries)-- a Full Movie Mode. You would be able to fast-forward, rewind, watch in slow-motion in either direction, and skip scenes just like in a DVD, and all FMVs in the game should offer that same option (most importantly about that, if you press "Start" during an FMV, it doesn't automatically skip but rather offers you all the aforementioned options... the entire game should similarly be as user-friendly as possible). I now think that all the third-person, dramatically ironic scenes would play after the Batman has already figured things out, which may come across as awkward. I think that it could either be set to bring those scenes back to where they belong in "real-time" in Full Movie Mode, or keep it as is; the method of revealing scenes of occurrences after a character has discovered clues or information is common enough in fiction (ex.: the movie 'The Fugitive'; the television show 'Veronica Mars,' which I know Zev watches) that I think many people could deal with that. Either way, I think it's a pretty cool option. I do realize many people would be sick of the game by the time they finish, since it's so complex and extremely long, but they could show it to friends or save it for another day to watch.


'Batman: Dark Knight Detective' was originally supposed to take place in a well-established Gotham City, somewhere in the continuity of comics published in the late 90's/early 00's. After envisioning a Batman movie franchise that begins with a 'Year One' based story, I think certain things about the original concept could actually be improved by cutting the game into as many parts as there are movies. For one, the memory, work hours and general resources that would go into such a project would be distributed over several years (although I do want the movies to be filmed back to back in pairs, resulting in one Batman movie released per year, so that may be a problem) and would make more money by dividing the project into separate games. If each game is bought and rented at a regular game price, that would help make the money back. The dynamics of each game would build on the previous one, rather than start from scratch each time. Anyway, that's the practical side of it, and I very well could be wrong, because I know pretty much nothing about video game development.

On the artistic side, this format would allow for extensive origin levels in which you would practice, gain skills and experience Bruce Wayne's journey
to becoming the Batman. The movie can only have so much pre-Batsuit content without ruining it, but because the game would encapsulate a lot more content overall, it can include much more of that kind of content, as well as a lot more post-Batsuit content (which should be much more plentiful than the other in any Batman movie or game).
Part of my original concept for 'Batman: Dark Knight Detective' was that somebody who knew the Batman's true identity would be messing with every aspect of his life, both as Bruce Wayne and the Batman. Included in this malicious campaign is the mastermind having all of the Batman's criminal street informants killed, as well as "outing" all of the Batman's false criminal/lowlife identities, forcing the Batman to make new contacts (which should be a complex process, at least the first time around) and establish new false identities. If it's a game based on the Batman's first year, then he can do both of those things anyway, as it will be the first time he does so in Gotham City. Except for the inclusion of several specific villains and the relationships the Batman has with Harvey Dent and James Gordon (who of course will not be the Commissioner in the beginning), the game series could still include most of its original concepts. Much history of the Batman mythos would be excluded, since this is early on, but as much of everything that could be included in this vast and complex virtual world would be included. The battle tactics, theatricality and detective work are all there for the player to indulge in. It would be oh so beautiful...


Again, I'll try to put those links up and edit and post my Word file that describes this stuff in more detail.

I know this is a fruitless question to ask, but what do you think?

:wolverine

[BatScot]

Ah, that's better...

[Herr Logan]

Ah, that's better...

Better than what, exactly?

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

Here are the post links for 'Batman: Dark Knight Detective' in the original Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189562&page=1&pp=20):

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6957244&postcount=442

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6957252&postcount=443

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6997894&postcount=454

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7111600&postcount=458

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7111608&postcount=459

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7141631&postcount=467

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7152649&postcount=473

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7152672&postcount=474

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...83#post7667483 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7667483#post7667483)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...60#post7668160 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7668160#post7668160)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...53#post7668253 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7668253#post7668253)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...40#post7669440 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7669440#post7669440)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...65#post7669765 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7669765#post7669765)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...89#post7851589 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7851589#post7851589)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...18#post7924218 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7924218#post7924218)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...17#post7924417 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7924417#post7924417)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...00#post7924700 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7924700#post7924700)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...37#post7925037 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7925037#post7925037)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...69#post7925269 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7925269#post7925269)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...42#post7925942 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7925942#post7925942)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...90#post7925990 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7925990#post7925990)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...05#post7926705 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7926705#post7926705)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...51#post7927251 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7927251#post7927251)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...35#post7927835 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7927835#post7927835)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...23#post7928023 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7928023#post7928023)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...88#post7928388 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7928388#post7928388)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...92#post7928792 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7928792#post7928792)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...31#post7929931 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7929931#post7929931)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...22#post7930322 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7930322#post7930322)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...17#post7935017 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7935017#post7935017)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...21#post7936021 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7936021#post7936021)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...34#post7937034 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7937034#post7937034)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...51#post7937351 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7937351#post7937351)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...69#post7940669 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7940669#post7940669)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...20#post7943820 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7943820#post7943820)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...45#post7945345 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7945345#post7945345)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...01#post7947501 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7947501#post7947501)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...16#post7948316 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7948316#post7948316)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...40#post7948740 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7948740#post7948740)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...53#post7949953 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7949953#post7949953)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...81#post7950581 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7950581#post7950581)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...76#post7950876 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7950876#post7950876)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...81#post7959181 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7959181#post7959181)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...86#post7960086 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7960086#post7960086)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...22#post7960522 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7960522#post7960522)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...95#post7966695 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7966695#post7966695)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...17#post7978517 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7978517#post7978517)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...68#post7981968 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7981968#post7981968)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...35#post7982435 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7982435#post7982435)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...17#post7987317 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7987317#post7987317)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...23#post7987923 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7987923#post7987923)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...80#post7988580 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7988580#post7988580)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...09#post7988609 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7988609#post7988609)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...57#post7988857 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7988857#post7988857)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...15#post7988915 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7988915#post7988915)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...64#post7988964 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7988964#post7988964)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...63#post7989163 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7989163#post7989163)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...46#post7990746 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7990746#post7990746)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/...50#post7991450 (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7991450#post7991450)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8005846&postcount=853

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8015198&postcount=876

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8043153&postcount=884

:wolverine

[BatScot]

Better than what, exactly?You can snikt the claws back in ;) I only came across this thread today and I was relieved to find a sanctuary... I was just kicking up my feet :cool:

[Herr Logan]

You can snikt the claws back in ;) I only came across this thread today and I was relieved to find a sanctuary... I was just kicking up my feet :cool:

See, that's what I'd hoped you meant, but hope is what gets people disappointed, betrayed and killed, thus the defensiveness.


Welcome to the Haven, BatScot. :up:

:wolverine

[BatScot]

See, that's what I'd hoped you meant, but hope is what gets people disappointed, betrayed and killed, thus the defensiveness.You know me better than that :rolleyes:

Welcome to the Haven, BatScot. :up:Ta very much.

[Herr Logan]

You know me better than that :rolleyes:

Do I? Can anyone truly know someone else?


Anyway, I was just kidding. I didn't actually intend to come off as defensive, but that's how you interpreted my question, so I figured I'd throw in a standard dose of paranoia.


Ta very much.

No problem. I know how unpleasant these boards can be... all covered in ovine feces and clumps of wool sheddings...

:wolverine

[Zev]

'Batman: Dark Knight Detective' is a game concept that would fully immerse the player in the life of the Batman in as many aspects as possible. It would be both free-roaming and detailed (remember, it would, if ever, be produced years from now, when gaming technology would be even more advanced), with a fully explorable (is that even a word??) Gotham City (which is an island) as well as a sizable chunk of Gotham County (the area across the river/bay on the mainland, where Wayne Manor actually is) and the surrounding water. All the major locations in the Batman's world (except for the JLA Watchtower) would be available. A stealth/shadow dynamic no less advanced than the 'Splinter Cell' games would be a major part of it as well.

I don't know if you could have a stealth/shadow dynamic AND a free-roam system. All those shadows have to be strategically placed, those guards' patrol routes have to be programmed in... maybe you can free-roam to a location and then enter a "mission" mode for plot-based "quests" (and not just random encounters).

The subtitle actually states the three major components of the game that you'll be graded on:
Dark: The Batman's brand of stealth, characteristic theatricality and the ability to strike fear into the hearts of superstitious, cowardly criminals, both through his frightful reputation and his actions during an encounter. It also relates to his ability to keep his secret identity secret throughout the stages where the player plays as Civilian Bruce Wayne and Alfred Pennyworth.

Only problem I see here is... why would anyone want to play as Bruce Wayne or Alfred Pennyworth when they could be Batman? I don't know if you played the Hulk movie game, but every so often they'd interrupt the fun of rampaging as the Hulk with forcing the player to sneak around as Bruce Banner. I was like "WTF?"

Maybe brief "interactive cutscenes" between missions where the players, as Bruce or Alfred, can have conversations like in the old Lucasarts or Sierra adventures games. Remember those, before everything became "stare at Lara Croft's ass while you pull blocks around"?

I'd give anything to hear Bruce say "How appropriate, you fight like a cow" (he said, establishing his geek credentials).

Knight: The Batman's effectiveness in his mission to protect the innocent and defeat and capture the guilty, based on his skill and aptitude with martial arts, weaponry, gadgets and various physical skills and maneuvers used in his routine as a dynamic and athletic vigilante (such as getting around, either by car, on foot, on a grapnel cable, etc.).
Detective: The Batman's full range of detection skills, including crime scene investigation, laboratory analysis of forensic evidence, obtaining information through a variety of methods (including surveillance, computer research and hacking, creating and maintaining a relationship with confidential criminal informants and police contacts, and interrogation through physical and psychological coersion), following clues and leads, disguise and impersonation, and his success rates and proportions at progressing and closing open cases.

Again, I don't know if the detective stuff can be as interesting as the "fighting, jumping off rooftops, driving the Batmobile" stuff. Maybe if they were just minigames (as I think we agreed on already, if so, disregard), but I think most people would rather have one really cool game than three kinda okay games bundled together. I remember playing Kingdom Hearts (shut up, okay, it is a personal dream of mine to fight evil with Disney characters) and being really POed when they'd interrupt the RPG/adventure stuff to put in a half-assed space shooter.

...

The biggest way in which this game would differ from comics, novels, TV shows, movies and any other medium of storytelling is that the story would unfold completely from the first-person perspectives of the Batman, Robin and Alfred Pennyworth. Let me be clear about this: when I say "first person perspective," I am only talking about the story content to which you are privy throughout the game; I am not saying that this game would be a first-person shooter. Anybody who would even consider making first-person shooter Batman game should be executed for their ignorance, so yeah, that's not what I'm saying. What that basically means is that, unless you are actually at the scene to witness it, you will not see any scenes in which villains and various third parties are planning or committing crimes or other actions, until you learn enough to put the pieces together. That means you won't see a villain in his hideout ranting about the Batman or Commissioner Gordon or how the food in Arkham Asylum is so terrible, unless you are sneaking around in the hideout itself, or have placed a listening device in a place where it would pick up such dialogue, or have either formed a theory or definitively deduced what that villain has done, will do, is currently doing, or would do under certain circumstances. The more you learn from clues, intelligence, forced or voluntary confessions, etc. the more third-person scenes of dramatic irony (that means the audience knows something about one character in the story that another character doesn't know about that character) you get to see. This is somewhat awkward, I know, but it would preserve the detective aspects and force you to figure out pretty much everything, unless clues and information happen to fall into your lap (which happens sometimes). The reason why it's awkward isn't that you don't get the information before you're supposed to, but that these types of scenes don't just show pertinent information, but dramatic/comedic content stemming from the personalities and mannerisms of the characters being portrayed. This could be considered a bit of a distortion of what the Batman is likely to imagine happening in context, even though he is quite knowledgable of many of these enemies and criminals. I'd be willing to live with that, even though the "realism" of that dynamic is altered by the influence of the "omniscient narrator" who wrote and programmed those story pieces.

So, something like Half-Life or Harry Potter, where you never deviate from one character's viewpoint. Doable.

I wanted the game to offer the option of watching the entirety of saved progress (as in all your failed attempts that result in restarting from a save point are not included) all the way through as a movie (more like a miniseries, actually... a very long miniseries)-- a Full Movie Mode. You would be able to fast-forward, rewind, watch in slow-motion in either direction, and skip scenes just like in a DVD, and all FMVs in the game should offer that same option (most importantly about that, if you press "Start" during an FMV, it doesn't automatically skip but rather offers you all the aforementioned options... the entire game should similarly be as user-friendly as possible). I now think that all the third-person, dramatically ironic scenes would play after the Batman has already figured things out, which may come across as awkward.

Or have the player play through the game a second time to be able to see them in their proper time and place, thus giving it retail value (kinda like how in the Spider-Man movie game, they let you play as Green Goblin, only totally different).

And onto the Year One concept, good idea (although it de facto invalidates Red Hood as a possible mastermind, unless you want to give him some sort of time travel equipment, which is almost as retarded as, say... writing that Leslie Thompkins, a pacifist doctor who's like a mother to Bruce and would literally die before allowing harm to come to ANYONE, let a young girl die just to deter Bruce from being a vigilante. YES, I CAN BE FULL OF RAGE TOO!). Plus, it saves the Robin stuff, the Iceberg Lounge, and Two-Face for a sequel. That'd be quite a draw to come back for another go, getting to play two-player with Robin or some sort of helper system or something.

By the way, I figured out a way (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7mWlPoHkBU) to have a romance in a Batman movie which will pull in a TON of female viewers, while not introducing a completely unnecessary female to the plot (*cough* Vicki Vale *cough cough* Chase Meridian *cough cough* Rachel Dawes *cough cough* Okay, Michelle Phfeiffer was really hot *cough cough*).

And, if that didn't piss you off too much (or worse yet, give you ideas), here's the start of a fic I'm working on (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=239948) about Nightwing. It's a lot more faithful to the canon than Spider-Man 6 was and a shorter read, although Batman's a bit more... ruthless than his mainstream counterpart. Then again, you have to be kind of a dick to dress a little kid up in bright colors and say "C'mon kid, help me beat up the dangerous criminals."

[Zaphod]

Herr, this is how I see the opening of 'The Batman' to work out on-screen. I imagine this sequence as being an opening teaser for the movie proper, before the training with Kirigi and all the scenes featuring young Bruce growing up in the Manor, Parents murder and subsequent training at home.


Pan around to Batman poised upon on high ledge between two gargoyle statues. Zoom in on bat-insignia, and fade to dark -
Bruce crashes through the dark and descends a chasm. Hitting the bottom, he peers up, broken boards and light. A bat flutters out of the darkness, perched and staring omniously, then a thousand fly out, terrifying Bruce who screams. Shots begin to ring out through the screaming -So that is basically your opener, which would merge into the beggining origin sequence with Bruce at the FBI as a trainee at age 20, interspliced with sequences involving Batman on the prowl in Gotham City. The idea to have these two narratives interspliced is to convey the first signs of Bruce's training being adopted in the field when he becomes Batman, and to give the audience some Batman goodness early on as we agreed. Also, it would cover the FBI origin succintly without dwelling, which would leave us more time later to flesh out other origin aspects. So, heres how it goes from here:


Bruce Wayne, age 20, fires of rounds into our screens. We pan around to see FBI Trainee in yellow block-captials on his back. We see the bullets he fires hit non-lethal organs on the body outline of the target/ Two thugs fire their guns randomly into the darkness, terrified expressions. Two black objects fly out from nowhere and strike the guns from their hands, the thugs recoil in pain and fear.
Bruce paces through an excerise course, leaping gaps, ducking, climbing, he grabs a rope and swings accross a large gap, touching down on the otherside/ Batman moves speedily accross a derelict rooftop, television antennae, cables, wires and garbage. He dodges these and extends his grappel gun, firing a line he crosses a large gap and lands on the ledge of the opposite building in a crouching position.
Bruce inspects a bullet casing on the ground during an FBI bust, inspecting it, he places it into a bag/Batman swabs some sulphur found on the ground and holds it up against a bullet shell, inferring.
Bruce and the FBI team open up a van and find drugs stowed in the rear/Batman plies open a crate in a warehouse, finds weapons, he compares the guns signature against that of the bullet, positive match.
Bruce and the FBI close in on the hired hands operating the drugs racket, sweep of room, weapons raised, shouting orders and positions/ Cornered thugs in a warehouse use the stashed guns and begin to fire. Batman moves through the shadow, drawing fire, disabling their weapons, aking them out one at a time, systematically.
Bruce watches the racketeers go free, throws badge and gun on the desk of CO, making his resignation/Police and SWAT enter the warehouse, find the criminals tried up and terrified beyond beleif. Fade out.Let me know what you think.

[Herr Logan]

Herr, this is how I see the opening of 'The Batman' to work out on-screen. I imagine this sequence as being an opening teaser for the movie proper, before the training with Kirigi and all the scenes featuring young Bruce growing up in the Manor, Parents murder and subsequent training at home.

Pan around to Batman poised upon on high ledge between two gargoyle statues. Zoom in on bat-insignia, and fade to dark -
Bruce crashes through the dark and descends a chasm. Hitting the bottom, he peers up, broken boards and light. A bat flutters out of the darkness, perched and staring omniously, then a thousand fly out, terrifying Bruce who screams. Shots begin to ring out through the screaming -So that is basically your opener, which would merge into the beggining origin sequence with Bruce at the FBI as a trainee at age 20, interspliced with sequences involving Batman on the prowl in Gotham City. The idea to have these two narratives interspliced is to convey the first signs of Bruce's training being adopted in the field when he becomes Batman, and to give the audience some Batman goodness early on as we agreed. Also, it would cover the FBI origin succintly without dwelling, which would leave us more time later to flesh out other origin aspects. So, heres how it goes from here:

Bruce Wayne, age 20, fires of rounds into our screens. We pan around to see FBI Trainee in yellow block-captials on his back. We see the bullets he fires hit non-lethal organs on the body outline of the target/ Two thugs fire their guns randomly into the darkness, terrified expressions. Two black objects fly out from nowhere and strike the guns from their hands, the thugs recoil in pain and fear.
Bruce paces through an excerise course, leaping gaps, ducking, climbing, he grabs a rope and swings accross a large gap, touching down on the otherside/ Batman moves speedily accross a derelict rooftop, television antennae, cables, wires and garbage. He dodges these and extends his grappel gun, firing a line he crosses a large gap and lands on the ledge of the opposite building in a crouching position.
Bruce inspects a bullet casing on the ground during an FBI bust, inspecting it, he places it into a bag/Batman swabs some sulphur found on the ground and holds it up against a bullet shell, inferring.
Bruce and the FBI team open up a van and find drugs stowed in the rear/Batman plies open a crate in a warehouse, finds weapons, he compares the guns signature against that of the bullet, positive match.
Bruce and the FBI close in on the hired hands operating the drugs racket, sweep of room, weapons raised, shouting orders and positions/ Cornered thugs in a warehouse use the stashed guns and begin to fire. Batman moves through the shadow, drawing fire, disabling their weapons, aking them out one at a time, systematically.
Bruce watches the racketeers go free, throws badge and gun on the desk of CO, making his resignation/Police and SWAT enter the warehouse, find the criminals tried up and terrified beyond beleif. Fade out.Let me know what you think.

He lives!!

I'm a little bit "iffy" on having so much of those flashbacks taking place in the FBI, especially since I'm pretty sure that Bruce never went on a bust with them in the comics, but in terms of the transitions and the things he's doing, I think this is really excellent. Well done, Zaphod, and thanks. :up:

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

I just want to say that I greatly appreciate people's comments not just because it flatters my fragile ego and because it offers suggestions, but because I very often generate a huge amount of ideas while reacting to criticism; criticism meaning not bashing my ideas, but analysing them and making suggestions or pointing out flaws. My mind has been going all over the place while responding to Zev's post, so while not everything may not be pure gold, it gives more options, and some of it is definitely necessary now that it occurs to me. Again, thanks.


I don't know if you could have a stealth/shadow dynamic AND a free-roam system. All those shadows have to be strategically placed, those guards' patrol routes have to be programmed in... maybe you can free-roam to a location and then enter a "mission" mode for plot-based "quests" (and not just random encounters).

It would be a monstrously advanced game, on a monstrously advanced system, hopefully not sold for a monstrously expensive price. It's hypothetical; my ideal.

I also want the shadows to move when light is introduced. Passing cars, flashlights, whatever. I want it to be like Splinter Cell in that way. Again, I know nothing about computer programming, but I would think that the biggest problem for the free-roaming aspect would be to make it all appear in thermal vision. If that wasn't doable but almost everything else in the game was, I would let it go without a fight (as long as it wasn't setting a precedent for everything else to be taken away). I'm talking about a game that captures the world of the Batman as "realistically" (to the context, not necessarily to our reality) and faithfully as possible. Yes, it would be difficult. That's always going to be the case. The question is, wouldn't that be awesome? Wouldn't it be great if you could do everything the Batman does?

That doesn't include doing hundreds of pushups and situps every day and sitting through boring business meetings (maybe just the time leading up to the meeting and the very last part before adjourning, leading up to dialogue between Bruce Wayne and others and personal interaction mini-games (which also means dialogue, but more player-directed and chosen, with consequences ranging between just extraneous dialogue to blowing your cover as a vigilante, depending on the situation and how much you've interacted with others throughout the game). No, that wasn't an exaggeration; the Batman literally does hundreds of pushups and/or situps every damn day, and other various exercises for extended periods of time. That's the benefit of having most of the day to himself so he can prepare for his night out on the town. Some people do some basic stretching before intense exercise, and some people spend hours doing insane amounts of various exercises. Either way, you won't be doing most of that sort of thing, although you will do some gymnastics, in training and in the field. Again, it supposed to be fun. Hell, they have lots of games out there where half of what you do is gymnastics ('Prince of Persia' anyone?).

The point I'm making here is that you get the full experience, and the lulls in action aren't meant to be long stretches of boring stuff. It's supposed to be the psychological aspects of the dual identity. Some people really dig the advanced concepts behind personal interaction minigames, working with forensics evidence and equipment, and being able to explore notable locations in the world of an action hero (like Wayne Manor and Wayne Enterprises) without being attacked before they're done checking stuff out. You will probably be interrupted several times throughout the Bruce Wayne socializing scenes by learning of a situation that might need the Batman's brand of assistance or interference. That's where the whole "you get to guide Bruce through the process of covering his mysterious, unstable ass so he can go play hero" thing comes in handy the most. Also, like I've said (or will say... I'm going back and forth throughout this post and editing, and I've lost track of where certain chunks of text are), the Jim Gordon is going to question Bruce Wayne because of his suspicions of Bruce being the Batman, and will first question Alfred a couple of times while Bruce is out or "downstairs," lurking and scheming.

I don't want it to be a classic-type RPG, so I don't know about free-roaming to mission spots and only gettin' down to business once you're inside. A lot of stuff happens to and for the Batman outdoors in Gotham City.

I do want there to be random encounters with criminals, since that's what happens in the Batman's world. They may not be accurately described as "random," though. I would have more crime in areas that are known to have more crime. In richer neighborhoods, there's less likelihood of outdoors robberies, so the Batman probably shouldn't be hanging around there (unless he's home out in Gotham County, of course, but he should be outside and in the City for a good chunk of each night. He'll have to return to one of his bases at some point anyway, so he should try to get a lot done each night.
Anyway, it wouldn't just be unforseen run-ins with crooks out there. I don't know if you've played either of the 'True Crime' games, but those are about rough-and-tumble cops who roam around their respective cities (L.A., NYC) and respond to dispatch reports resulting from 911 calls. The Batman taps into the police band constantly, so that would be happening in 'Batman: Dark Knight Detective' (I'm gonna heretofore refer to it as B:DKD, because it's getting as annoying to keep typing it as it is for you to read about it). Often you would try to get there as soon as possible, both to help out as early as possible to save lives, and to get in, kick ass, and get out before the cops get there. If they show up and you're still there, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but the Batman does try to do this when possible, so you get more points awarded for that (yes, I've decided there's going to be points, but you won't see them on the screen anywhere unless you go to a menu and check your statistics). Wait... if this is going to be based on the first movie of Zaphod's and my Batman movie franchise, you damn well better get out before the cops show up! They're out for your ass as much as to brutalize criminals and extort citizens, so yeah, you don't ever want to run in to them if you don't have to, unless you're good enough to take them down without getting shot. This would actually give you more time in some cases, as most police in Gotham in Year One aren't really that eager to help people other than themselves. If it's a big shootout with lots of armed goons, you'll probably have more time than in other cases, but when the cops do get there, it's going to be extremely dangerous, because it will probably be that trigger-happy, bomb-dropping warlord who commands the SWAT unit, Sergeant Branden, who was going to completely screw up that hostage sitation in Frank Millers 'Batman: Year One,' until Gordon stepped in, told him to back off and saved the day while risking his life. So yeah, you want to avoid running into cops if you don't have to, unless you're sneaking up on them to quietly force them to take a nap. You also don't want to be seen doing that by anybody, but in cases like the one where the Batman attacked Detective Flass and a whole bunch of known criminals during a drug-smuggling errand, it may not be avoidable. You just have to make sure you do things as dramatically and frighteningly as possible in the time you have. Wait, I don't think there were any other police during that encounter... oh well.
Anyway, there would be various missions (far more than there were in 'Year One'), 911 calls, and run-ins (like muggings , assaults, drug-peddling, etc.) with crooks and crooked cops. That's what happens in the city at night. Oh, I forgot, there would also be run-ins with dead bodies or injured people sometimes, and you would try to solve the case before the police declare it solved or unsolvable. That's where some forensic evidence would come in. The CSI stuff would happen for various specific missions as well. For a lot of missions, or even certain "random" calls, there would often be indoor environments that are elaborate and detailed. I'm probably forgetting stuff, but for now that should give a better idea of what goes on. It's supposed to be less repetitive and pointless as in 'Spider-Man 2,' but it's also more difficult, because the Batman doesn't move as fast as Spider-Man and he can't take a lot of gunshot wounds.

Only problem I see here is... why would anyone want to play as Bruce Wayne or Alfred Pennyworth when they could be Batman? I don't know if you played the Hulk movie game, but every so often they'd interrupt the fun of rampaging as the Hulk with forcing the player to sneak around as Bruce Banner. I was like "WTF?"

Maybe brief "interactive cutscenes" between missions where the players, as Bruce or Alfred, can have conversations like in the old Lucasarts or Sierra adventures games. Remember those, before everything became "stare at Lara Croft's ass while you pull blocks around"?

I'd give anything to hear Bruce say "How appropriate, you fight like a cow" (he said, establishing his geek credentials).

I'm not talking about having Bruce Wayne push boxes around (unless we wanted game levels where he puts the Batcave together from separate components... no? Well, then I got nothin'...). For the training/origin levels, you wouldn't wear the costume and for the most part wouldn't have all the Batman's gadgets at once. I know, that's annoying, but it's faithful. To compensate for the full missions you do as pre-Batsuit Bruce, there's a lot of post-Batsuit stuff to keep a reasonable Bruce/Batman ratio (something like for every 1 whatever for Bruce, there's at least 4 whatever for the Batman). Anyway, there's the origin levels, and then there's the Year One timeframe, where Bruce Wayne works to keep his secret identity from Lt. James Gordon and everyone else. I don't know if you're ever played 'Indigo Prophecy' or 'Farenheight' (they're the same game, named differently in different places), but it featured minigames where you did social interactions, and one of the characters you play as is trying to keep secrets from others. You choose what kind of response you want to give at certain times, and you either do a good job, do a passable job, or screw it up and have to start again from a save point. It's one of the psychological elements of the game. It's the life of the Batman.

For Alfred, I figure there will be one mandatory mission where you play him and have him drive out to Gotham City and pick up an injured Batman. If this game is based on Zaphod's and my Year One movie, then there won't even be the option of having the Batman summon the Batmobile to him to climb in and let the computer drive him home. His car isn't automated at that point. By the second movie, that option should be available for the game, and then Alfred would only have to come for you if you couldn't climb into the car or are in a place where the car can't get close enough and you can't get to it. Anyway, yeah, it's a "Fetch the Beat-up Batman" mission. The other thing is that I wanted Alfred to also have the personal interact minigame where he covers for Bruce. That kind of thing. I don't mean pushing boxes around and solving idiotic block puzzles as Bruce Wayne or Alfred. At least I'm pretty sure there'd be nothing that pointless. I haven't figured everything out yet, but my intent is to have the only things that aren't outright "exciting" in the action sense be stuff that is integral to the Batman mythos and for the sake of completeness.

To be continued...

[Herr Logan]

Again, I don't know if the detective stuff can be as interesting as the "fighting, jumping off rooftops, driving the Batmobile" stuff. Maybe if they were just minigames (as I think we agreed on already, if so, disregard), but I think most people would rather have one really cool game than three kinda okay games bundled together. I remember playing Kingdom Hearts (shut up, okay, it is a personal dream of mine to fight evil with Disney characters) and being really POed when they'd interrupt the RPG/adventure stuff to put in a half-assed space shooter.

If people want to fully become the Batman, they gotta do the whole detective thing as well as the action thing. It should still be interesting, it just won't be as exciting. While you do the various detective minigames, there should be lots of monologues from the Batman and dialogue between him and Alfred. That should keep things more interesting.

It's not three "kinda okay" games put together, God dammit... it's two really cool games and one very "okay" game put together. I thought the CSI stuff in 'Still Life' was pretty damn cool, but it was only one stage and the rest of the gameplay sucked mega ass. They didn't even give us a real God damn ending! Who was the killer? Who?!!
Anyway, throw in some good detective work, make the minigames a regular thing, make a variety of situations and trace or mere evidence, try not to make them tedious, add dialogue so that if a player feels the minigames were tedious (which, to be honest, would be if there wasn't other visual or audio content present to keep it interesting).

Another significant aspect from 'Still Life ' I'd use is a dialogue log, which would actually be more inclusive of everything you witness and be a "memory log". There would definitely be a case log where the Batman would write notes about what has happened with regards to crimes and long-term missions, theories about it, what needs to be done and what is reccommended for you to do, but there would also be a log of everything the Batman thinks or says, and everything anybody says that you witness. That means that any actions you see on the screen that are possibly important, the Batman automatically stores in his memory, so you would go to the Mental Log, where all your significant memories and information would be. Everything he learns, everything significant that he or anyone else does... everything that could possibly help you. This is mainly for the purpose of letting you review anything you might have missed, and so the player can analyze everything and pick out possible clues. This is a big part of the detective work (and I just came up with that idea, specifically that you can find clues from visual observations and dialogue, as I already intended to have notes in the Mental Log. The other purpose I see in this is to capture the Batman's character faithfully and accurately yet again; in this case focusing on his uncanny memory and capacity to review his own thoughts as well as the pertinent notes. I would have several theories for each case appear in the Batman's notes (the notes being separate from the continous memory transcript, but based upon its content), and the memory log should highlight certain sections of the memory transcript for you once you've found a certain amount of clues for each case. The theories will turn into leads when you discover enough clues for a single case or what could be several open cases with similar elements (like what kind of crime it was or whom was involved). You would follow one lead at a time for the most part (which could end up being a dead end, in which case you'd move on to the next one and see if it pans out), but it could lead to the discovery that two or more crimes are connected. That would be the easiest way to shorten your "to do" list, but it isn't really up to you with regard to what the facts are.

One big difference between the logs this game and the one in 'Still Life' is that it would automatically in the place in the text where things are at that same time. In 'Still Life,' which was a clumsy, non-user friendly game overall, the log would always start at the beginning, so you'd have to scroll all the way down if you wanted to check something that had been said recently. At least I think I remember that right... even I could be wrong. Anyway, if you wanted to check something said much earlier in the day/night, you'd still have to scroll up a whole lot, but I think that's still better. Hey, how about there are buttons you can push using the cursor that bring you to the very top or the very bottom, and maybe even one for the middle? I think I'd want there to be a log for every day, because yes, this game would be in realtime (I hate that idiotic "one minute for each real second" crap), and expansive enough that you could play hours of the game every nigh, and that's a lot of log to go through. I know that seems ridiculous, but the thing is, you choose when you go home after a certain point. Sometimes the Batman only spends four hours out at night. There may be a cut-off point where you have to wrap up whatever you're doing and go home, or the Batman will just do it on his own without your control. If you're in an enemies hideout or in a place where there are clues to be found or people to talk to, or in a chase or fight, you can stay as long as you need to until sunrise. I think that's relatively reasonable.

Here's another idea that makes things potentially annoying, but might not. If this game is based on Zaphod's and my movie franchise, then the Batman is just starting out, and Gotham City would have changed a bit since he's been gone. If this was the original concept, you wouldn't have to do any exploring to get a full map of every square foot of Gotham City, but if you're the Batman for the very first time, he'd want to actually cover that space and get to know his city as if for the first time. Maybe the player could flesh out the map whenever he treads on new ground. Wait... he's supposed to have a GPS in the movie. Well, if not this exactly, then it could be so that you uncover certain details about the city in terms of who hangs out in which places, which is then marked on the Batman's "Mental Map" (in the Mental Log) and/or possibly even the GPS. When you learn something about the places you go, it fills in on the map so you don't have to remember everything.

So, something like Half-Life or Harry Potter, where you never deviate from one character's viewpoint. Doable.

I wouldn't know, as I never played either, but I'm pretty sure you get what I'm saying.

Or have the player play through the game a second time to be able to see them in their proper time and place, thus giving it retail value (kinda like how in the Spider-Man movie game, they let you play as Green Goblin, only totally different).

Well, maybe. The greatest thing ever would be if the game was so insanely complex and advanced that there could be alternative cases you can do if you play through it again (apart from the 'Year One' and 'The Man Who Falls' storylines). The game would be very much the same in terms of overall plot, but there would be lots of fully intricate cases that are relatively interchangeable between movie plot missions.

And onto the Year One concept, good idea (although it de facto invalidates Red Hood as a possible mastermind, unless you want to give him some sort of time travel equipment, which is almost as retarded as, say... writing that Leslie Thompkins, a pacifist doctor who's like a mother to Bruce and would literally die before allowing harm to come to ANYONE, let a young girl die just to deter Bruce from being a vigilante. YES, I CAN BE FULL OF RAGE TOO!). Plus, it saves the Robin stuff, the Iceberg Lounge, and Two-Face for a sequel. That'd be quite a draw to come back for another go, getting to play two-player with Robin or some sort of helper system or something.

Eh, the Red Hood shouldn't be a conspiracy mastermind anyway. He doesn't have what it takes, or at least not as much as others. If this was Year One and based on the movie concepts Zaphod and I are constructing, it definitely couldn't be him. It also wouldn't have a conspiracy directed at both Bruce and the Batman.

It would be the third movie at the earliest that Robin would come into the picture. I'm not sure what to do with him in a game. I'm not sure two-player would work if I kept the game as "realistic" in terms of the character as I wanted, specifically the function that slows down time so the player has more time to think about performing certain actions (batarangs sometimes, grapnel firing, etc.), simulating the way the Batman's mind works faster than most people's. I'll have to think about it.

I would definitely save several villains for later games, similarly to how the Spider-Man games did it.

By the way, I figured out a way (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7mWlPoHkBU) to have a romance in a Batman movie which will pull in a TON of female viewers, while not introducing a completely unnecessary female to the plot (*cough* Vicki Vale *cough cough* Chase Meridian *cough cough* Rachel Dawes *cough cough* Okay, Michelle Phfeiffer was really hot *cough cough*).

You soulless fiend...

In the first movie, there will be no love interest whatsoever. Catwoman will be seen, but not interacting with the Batman. There isn't even time to waste on love interests in this one. The love interest (a doomed one) is in the second movie, and I don't know if there will be after that.

And, if that didn't piss you off too much (or worse yet, give you ideas), here's the start of a fic I'm working on (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=239948) about Nightwing. It's a lot more faithful to the canon than Spider-Man 6 was and a shorter read, although Batman's a bit more... ruthless than his mainstream counterpart. Then again, you have to be kind of a dick to dress a little kid up in bright colors and say "C'mon kid, help me beat up the dangerous criminals."
Batman's more ruthless than he is in the comics... in a fan fic written by you?? I'm so shocked, I think I have to lie down! :eek:

The one thing I'll say at the moment is that I think you mischaracterized Clark Kent when he said, "Gotham has good people. Bludhaven doesn't."

Thanks again very much for your comments, Zev. :up:

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

I forgot to reiterate before what the pay-offs for earning Dark/Knight /Detective (DKD) points are:

RATING SYSTEM:

·Dark:

Stealth— Avoiding detection in infiltration and search operations, ability to observe without being seen; ratio of time unseen by police and civilians to total time in costume, barring all necessary appearances.

Theatricality— Timing, style of entrances and exits; successful fear tactics; movement style.

Identity— Ability to keep secret identity by maintaining distinct behavior in each persona, elude police looking to question Bruce Wayne.

·Knight:

Rescues and Saves— Ratio of known individuals endangered to individuals saved or protected by the Batman; excessive or deadly force counts against score or ends game.

Combat Ability— Average duration of battle from first strike to submission/defeat of opponent; ratio of strikes thrown to strikes connected; mastery of physical combat; style and variation; mastery of gadgetry.

Resourcefulness— Creativity in escaping danger, attack, captivity; escape efficiency; ratio of injuries avoided to injuries suffered, narrow escapes from danger not created by own mistakes.

·Detective:

Thoroughness— Ratio of cases pursued to total cases; ratio of cases closed to cases pursued; ratio of clues and evidence gathered to clues and evidence available; ratio of suspects caught and verified or discounted to total suspects.

Efficiency— Average duration of investigation from first awareness to close; average of best leads or routes taken of leads available.

People Skills— interrogation success rate, style and variability; mastery of disguise and pretense; profiling and personality estimation, psychological manipulation; ability to maintain alliances while still keeping mystery and distance from allies.



REWARDS:

Dark:

More fearsome reputation brings stronger fear stimulus in enemies, decreasing their effectiveness;
Alternate costumes, Comic book covers, artwork;
Special FMVs (classic moments from Bat-canon, memories associated with artifacts in the Batman’s/Bruce’s residences).
Knight:

Special weapons and field gadgets;
Tougher armor;
Gliding cape;
Bonus Batmobile functions.
Detective:
Upgraded, more efficient, more automated crime scene investigation and forensics equipment for utility belt and in the Cave;
More capacity to propose leads and single out clues (the game does this for you). That's a pretty sweet deal, ain't it?

:wolverine

[Zev]

You soulless fiend...

That doesn't tell me how many stars you gave it. You want feedback, I want ratings.

[Herr Logan]

That doesn't tell me how many stars you gave it. You want feedback, I want ratings.

Did you make this? Did I offend you personally with my less-than-pleased reaction? If so, GOOD! That was hideous and all manner of wrong!

:wolverine

[Zev]

Did you make this? Did I offend you personally with my less-than-pleased reaction? If so, GOOD! That was hideous and all manner of wrong!

:wolverine

If it makes you feel better, the movie is intended as a satire of those fanvids made by teenage girls who are convinced that, say, Jack Sparrow and Will Turner are secretly lovers and thus set every single look between them to Coldplay (or whatever the kids are into) and call it subtext.

[Herr Logan]

If it makes you feel better, the movie is intended as a satire of those fanvids made by teenage girls who are convinced that, say, Jack Sparrow and Will Turner are secretly lovers and thus set every single look between them to Coldplay (or whatever the kids are into) and call it subtext.

Interesting. And why do you think "these girls" do that? Is it because you-- *achem* I mean they, is it because they have fantasies about seeing these characters coupling as a way of vicariously experiencing the love of either or both of the characters in question? This is a Safe place, Zev, and nobody is here to judge you. Fantasies like this are normal.

:wolverine

[Zev]

Alright, damn you, I'll admit it! I cried at the end of Brokeback Mountain! It was just so beautiful and no one could take their love away and... and...

Actually, the real reason slashers do it is that, psychologically speaking, they'd feel that another woman in a pairing would be threatening, so they conjure up a man to take their place. And for some reason, they're unable to distinguish any emotion (from friendship to blind and unreasoning hatred) from sexual attraction, so if they see two pretty men who get along well, they're smush them together even if, say, the two men are friendly because they're brothers.

I have actually seen this happen. Not pretty. Would you believe that some people actually are convinced that Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy are soulmates. Draco's a racist, elitist little brat who would dance on Harry's parents' grave and Harry wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire, but apparently this is code for "wants to have underage buttsex". It's krazy!

Although I will go gay a long time before I have sex with Helen Thomas. Have you seen that woman? It's like Jason Voorhees under the hockey mask! I think Allah came up with the burqa when he saw that one day Helen Thomas would be running around. She must've fallen off the ugly tree and hit every branch on the wall down. I mean, I know it's wrong to judge people based on their appearance, but holy mackeral! I think you could use a picture of her as a murder weapon! It's like some sort of Lovecraftian horror. You can't really describe it because it chokes all that is good and beautiful out of your brain. Those sites that run pictures of suicide victims and car accidents should also show Helen Thomas, because it's the same damn category. They say that inside every ugly person is a beautiful person waiting to get out, but I think that all Helen Thomas has is three or four young girls chained to her furnace. I think she must live inside a house made of candy. In fact, I think she was the one who started all those rumors in Salem, she's old enough. Jesus Christ, what a kisser! Helen Thomas' face is proof that God has a sense of humor! She looks like she got flicked on the nose by a couple hundred pounds of nuclear radiation. Her daily facial must involve sulfuric acid. There must be life after death, because Helen Thomas looks like a walking corpse!

[Herr Logan]

Alright, damn you, I'll admit it! I cried at the end of Brokeback Mountain! It was just so beautiful and no one could take their love away and... and...

Actually, the real reason slashers do it is that, psychologically speaking, they'd feel that another woman in a pairing would be threatening, so they conjure up a man to take their place. And for some reason, they're unable to distinguish any emotion (from friendship to blind and unreasoning hatred) from sexual attraction, so if they see two pretty men who get along well, they're smush them together even if, say, the two men are friendly because they're brothers.

I have actually seen this happen. Not pretty. Would you believe that some people actually are convinced that Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy are soulmates. Draco's a racist, elitist little brat who would dance on Harry's parents' grave and Harry wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire, but apparently this is code for "wants to have underage buttsex". It's krazy!

Hmm... Do you think the same vicarious jealousy dynamic is part of the reason why heterosexual males are so enamored with lesbians? My girlfriend asked me once why guys like watching lesbians, and all I could come up with was, "Well, guys like beautiful wimmens acting sexual, and if it's two women being sexual together, then it's only wimmens, then it's pure attraction." Still, seeing a woman doing dirty, dirty things with a man does make it easier for us to imagine ourselves doing those particular dirty, dirty things with the wimmens, so it works either way.

Although I will go gay a long time before I have sex with Helen Thomas. Have you seen that woman? It's like Jason Voorhees under the hockey mask! I think Allah came up with the burqa when he saw that one day Helen Thomas would be running around. She must've fallen off the ugly tree and hit every branch on the wall down. I mean, I know it's wrong to judge people based on their appearance, but holy mackeral! I think you could use a picture of her as a murder weapon! It's like some sort of Lovecraftian horror. You can't really describe it because it chokes all that is good and beautiful out of your brain. Those sites that run pictures of suicide victims and car accidents should also show Helen Thomas, because it's the same damn category. They say that inside every ugly person is a beautiful person waiting to get out, but I think that all Helen Thomas has is three or four young girls chained to her furnace. I think she must live inside a house made of candy. In fact, I think she was the one who started all those rumors in Salem, she's old enough. Jesus Christ, what a kisser! Helen Thomas' face is proof that God has a sense of humor! She looks like she got flicked on the nose by a couple hundred pounds of nuclear radiation. Her daily facial must involve sulfuric acid. There must be life after death, because Helen Thomas looks like a walking corpse!

Methinks you doth protest too much, Zev. Why don't you just tell her how you really feel about her like a grown-up instead of stealing her lunch box and pulling her hair during recess as an indirect way of showing that you like her.

:wolverine

[Zev]

Hmm... Do you think the same vicarious jealousy dynamic is part of the reason why heterosexual males are so enamored with lesbians? My girlfriend asked me once why guys like watching lesbians, and all I could come up with was, "Well, guys like beautiful wimmens acting sexual, and if it's two women being sexual together, then it's only wimmens, then it's pure attraction." Still, seeing a woman doing dirty, dirty things with a man does make it easier for us to imagine ourselves doing those particular dirty, dirty things with the wimmens, so it works either way.

No, the reason guys like lesbians is because it's totally hot. We're simple that way.

Methinks you doth protest too much, Zev. Why don't you just tell her how you really feel about her like a grown-up instead of stealing her lunch box and pulling her hair during recess as an indirect way of showing that you like her.

:wolverine

Dude, you're stepping over the line. I'd sooner kiss a wookie. I mean, have you seen Helen Thomas? It's like some ugly bomb went off right in her face! I think she went looking for the Holy Grail, drank from the wrong one, and didn't die! She may be suffering from some sort of gypsy curse, because there's no way that much ugly can be natural! I think I may have to look at something prettier to scrub my eyes of Helen Thomas, like Kathy Bates' nude scene in About Schmidt. How can one person have that much ugly? She's like a suicide bomber, only instead of a vest full of explosives, she has that face! Good God!

[Herr Logan]

No, the reason guys like lesbians is because it's totally hot. We're simple that way.

Amen!

Dude, you're stepping over the line. I'd sooner kiss a wookie. I mean, have you seen Helen Thomas? It's like some ugly bomb went off right in her face! I think she went looking for the Holy Grail, drank from the wrong one, and didn't die! She may be suffering from some sort of gypsy curse, because there's no way that much ugly can be natural! I think I may have to look at something prettier to scrub my eyes of Helen Thomas, like Kathy Bates' nude scene in About Schmidt. How can one person have that much ugly? She's like a suicide bomber, only instead of a vest full of explosives, she has that face! Good God!

Kathy Bates had a nude scene in 'About Schmidt'?



*Clicks on Netflix bookmark*

:wolverine

[Zev]

Kathy Bates had a nude scene in 'About Schmidt'?



*Clicks on Netflix bookmark*

:wolverine

I don't think we're thinking of the same Kathy Bates. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000870/)

[Herr Logan]

I don't think we're thinking of the same Kathy Bates. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000870/)

Oh I think we are. I had dreams about Kathy Bates when I was in 6th grade.

They were of me waking up to see her hold me down and tranquilize me so I could wake up strapped to the bed, with her standing there with a sledgehammer in her hands.

Seeing her naked will take some of her power over me away.

Also, there's another movie (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000870/bio) in which she appeared nude, apparently.

:wolverine

[Zev]

Oh I think we are. I had dreams about Kathy Bates when I was in 6th grade.

They were of me waking up to see her hold me down and tranquilize me so I could wake up strapped to the bed, with her standing there with a sledgehammer in her hands.

Seeing her naked will take some of her power over me away.

Also, there's another movie (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000870/bio) in which she appeared nude, apparently.

:wolverine

...

You're a sick man, Herr.

[Zev]

Interesting. And why do you think "these girls" do that? Is it because you-- *achem* I mean they, is it because they have fantasies about seeing these characters coupling as a way of vicariously experiencing the love of either or both of the characters in question? This is a Safe place, Zev, and nobody is here to judge you. Fantasies like this are normal.

:wolverine

Are you suggesting I'm a homosexual (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY6we6D-Mx0)?

[MaskedManJRK]

By the way, I figured out a way (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7mWlPoHkBU) to have a romance in a Batman movie which will pull in a TON of female viewers, while not introducing a completely unnecessary female to the plot (*cough* Vicki Vale *cough cough* Chase Meridian *cough cough* Rachel Dawes *cough cough* Okay, Michelle Phfeiffer was really hot *cough cough*).

:D:up:

[MaskedManJRK]

Alright, damn you, I'll admit it! I cried at the end of Brokeback Mountain! It was just so beautiful and no one could take their love away and... and...

Actually, the real reason slashers do it is that, psychologically speaking, they'd feel that another woman in a pairing would be threatening, so they conjure up a man to take their place. And for some reason, they're unable to distinguish any emotion (from friendship to blind and unreasoning hatred) from sexual attraction, so if they see two pretty men who get along well, they're smush them together even if, say, the two men are friendly because they're brothers.

I have actually seen this happen. Not pretty. Would you believe that some people actually are convinced that Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy are soulmates. Draco's a racist, elitist little brat who would dance on Harry's parents' grave and Harry wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire, but apparently this is code for "wants to have underage buttsex". It's krazy!

Although I will go gay a long time before I have sex with Helen Thomas. Have you seen that woman? It's like Jason Voorhees under the hockey mask! I think Allah came up with the burqa when he saw that one day Helen Thomas would be running around. She must've fallen off the ugly tree and hit every branch on the wall down. I mean, I know it's wrong to judge people based on their appearance, but holy mackeral! I think you could use a picture of her as a murder weapon! It's like some sort of Lovecraftian horror. You can't really describe it because it chokes all that is good and beautiful out of your brain. Those sites that run pictures of suicide victims and car accidents should also show Helen Thomas, because it's the same damn category. They say that inside every ugly person is a beautiful person waiting to get out, but I think that all Helen Thomas has is three or four young girls chained to her furnace. I think she must live inside a house made of candy. In fact, I think she was the one who started all those rumors in Salem, she's old enough. Jesus Christ, what a kisser! Helen Thomas' face is proof that God has a sense of humor! She looks like she got flicked on the nose by a couple hundred pounds of nuclear radiation. Her daily facial must involve sulfuric acid. There must be life after death, because Helen Thomas looks like a walking corpse!

Yeah, I've seen some kooky slash fics in my day. :o

[Herr Logan]

That's enough spam, God dammit!

:wolverine

[Nightwing92]

That's enough spam, God dammit!

:wolverine


hahaha.... you seem very pissed.....

[Herr Logan]

hahaha.... you seem very pissed.....

Yes, that's hilarious. Do you have anything relevent to say that conforms to the House Rules (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=232432)?

If yes, then post it.

If not, then stay out or get reported immediately. I don't tolerate spam from new people who haven't posted valid content, and the moderators don't take take kindly to newbies who misbehave, either.

:wolverine

[Cullen]

That's enough spam, God dammit!

:wolverineYeah! No more spam! Bloody Vikings!

And that's what passes for wit from me today.

And now for something completely different: A comment more or less on topic.

I'm going to talk about why I wouldn't use Robin in a movie/T.V. series/bookseries. It's real simple; it's his costume. Specifically the mask. I can accept a lot of things, but maintaining a secert identity with that whatsit on your face... I just can't.

It's the same with the Lone Ranger and Green Hornet (although more with the first than the second; the Lone Ranger's real id is supposed to be dead, after all). Someone has to make the connection. Between voice and the majority of his face being seen, there wouldn't be a game to give away.

Now I know there are tricks that could be used around it (Robin doesn't speak around strangers, say, or some sort of voice modulator). But why bother setting that up? If a companion role is needed, why not use, say Catwoman? Granted, Catwoman wouldn't be as altruistic as Robin, but that's a part of what makes her interesting. Fact of the matter is, I'd rather deal with her than a little Batman varient any day.

No, better put the "Robin days" in the future some place, if at all. Call the movie world Earth-C, or Earth-NR.

Now I'm babbling.

I might have said this before on the original Safe Haven thread. If so, I apologize for the redundancy. I'm writing tired right now. Muy, muy tired.

It was just a combination of not contributing to this thread again after making such a producution the first time, on it being six days without a post. Made me feel a little guilty.

[Zaphod]

Yeah! No more spam! Bloody Vikings!

And that's what passes for wit from me today.

And now for something completely different: A comment more or less on topic.

I'm going to talk about why I wouldn't use Robin in a movie/T.V. series/bookseries. It's real simple; it's his costume. Specifically the mask. I can accept a lot of things, but maintaining a secert identity with that whatsit on your face... I just can't.

It's the same with the Lone Ranger and Green Hornet (although more with the first than the second; the Lone Ranger's real id is supposed to be dead, after all). Someone has to make the connection. Between voice and the majority of his face being seen, there wouldn't be a game to give away.

Now I know there are tricks that could be used around it (Robin doesn't speak around strangers, say, or some sort of voice modulator). But why bother setting that up? If a companion role is needed, why not use, say Catwoman? Granted, Catwoman wouldn't be as altruistic as Robin, but that's a part of what makes her interesting. Fact of the matter is, I'd rather deal with her than a little Batman varient any day.

No, better put the "Robin days" in the future some place, if at all. Call the movie world Earth-C, or Earth-NR.

Now I'm babbling.

I might have said this before on the original Safe Haven thread. If so, I apologize for the redundancy. I'm writing tired right now. Muy, muy tired.

It was just a combination of not contributing to this thread again after making such a producution the first time, on it being six days without a post. Made me feel a little guilty.


Cullen, by definition of your arguement, Superman shouldn't be adapted into a movie/TV sereis/booksereis either, since the likeness to his secret-identity Clark Kent is nigh on picture perfect if not for the glasses, and they only cover the same amount of face but to an even lesser extent?

Have you read my post on Robin and my explaining of the costume, including the mask, and how it could be reconciled for a movie to appear to make more sense? I'll dig it up and post a link to it here sometime later, but I basically took the costume and worked in a fleshed out reasoning for why Dick Grayson would wear a costume such as he does. The mask, aswell as the colours are explainable, it only takes some imagination to validate them.

This is what filmmakers should have been doing from the very beggining, rather than coming up with excuses as to why particular costumes are un-realistic for screen, or apologist excuses for having them drastically altered. Take the 'X Men' movie sereis as a prime example: The costumes the X-Men wore in the comics are drastically altered, beyond recognition, into identical looking leather outfits for each team, presumably under the pretense that it looks "cooler" and more "realistic" than having the heroes go around in their brightly coloured uniforms like they did in the comics. Except of course for the fact that leather is a completely inhibiting, ridiculously impractical material for wearing in combat, and in performing the sheer number of bodily feats that the X-Men do. Herr has pointed this out many times before, but it is still a very valid arguement which all should take heed of, especially these filmmakers.

So called 'fans' thought is was clever when Cyclops made the "yellow-spandex" gag in X Men, but in all honesty, it takes far more talent, imagination and general respect for the source material, to adapt the original comic-book costumes and develop on them a reasoning for their use, rather than doing away with them all together in a show of laziness on the filmmakers part and coming up with a cheap gag to justify such a choice.

[Herr Logan]

Cullen, by definition of your arguement, Superman shouldn't be adapted into a movie/TV sereis/booksereis either, since the likeness to his secret-identity Clark Kent is nigh on picture perfect if not for the glasses, and they only cover the same amount of face but to an even lesser extent?


You tell him, Zaphod!

Have you read my post on Robin and my explaining of the costume, including the mask, and how it could be reconciled for a movie to appear to make more sense? I'll dig it up and post a link to it here sometime later, but I basically took the costume and worked in a fleshed out reasoning for why Dick Grayson would wear a costume such as he does. The mask, aswell as the colours are explainable, it only takes some imagination to validate them.

The colors can also be an appropriately dark color; dark enough not to appear too flashy (except for the yellow inside lining of the cape, perhaps... I'm sure that will be at least somewhat noticeable no matter what when the cape flares out, but then again, that's what all the top-rate tactical and combat training is for...), but not so dark that you can't tell that the colors are red and green when close up.

This is what filmmakers should have been doing from the very beggining, rather than coming up with excuses as to why particular costumes are un-realistic for screen, or apologist excuses for having them drastically altered. Take the 'X Men' movie sereis as a prime example: The costumes the X-Men wore in the comics are drastically altered, beyond recognition, into identical looking leather outfits for each team, presumably under the pretense that it looks "cooler" and more "realistic" than having the heroes go around in their brightly coloured uniforms like they did in the comics. Except of course for the fact that leather is a completely inhibiting, ridiculously impractical material for wearing in combat, and in performing the sheer number of bodily feats that the X-Men do. Herr has pointed this out many times before, but it is still a very valid arguement which all should take heed of, especially these filmmakers.

So called 'fans' thought is was clever when Cyclops made the "yellow-spandex" gag in X Men, but in all honesty, it takes far more talent, imagination and general respect for the source material, to adapt the original comic-book costumes and develop on them a reasoning for their use, rather than doing away with them all together in a show of laziness on the filmmakers part and coming up with a cheap gag to justify such a choice.

I think I said recently in the X-Men Safe Haven that I'd have my rendition of Wolverine answer Movie!Cyclops' snotty remark in a couple of different ways. When Wolverine makes some comments about how he can slip past anyone unnoticed or the like, another X-Man will ask why he doesn't wear all black if he puts so much value on stealth (he'll be wearing the design of his original costume, with a deep orange and black replacing yellow and blue), and he'll respond that he doesn't need to wear all black; when you're as good as he is, you don't depend on coloring, you depend on your body movement.
I would have him wear a suit that has a noticable amount of yellow and blue in it when he first appears, when he's at Department H and first meets Xavier. It would be leather, too, and when he gets a new uniform at the Xavier Institute, he comments that he much prefers the specially-made material they use in their costumes, as leather is extremely impractical when they have space-age fabrics that are durable, fireproof and breathable at their disposal.

:wolverine

[Zev]

Well, ummm... if leather is out, than shouldn't capes be too? Because I think The Incredibles kinda blasted that concept out of the water. At least Batman Begins gave Batman's cape some functionality beyond "looking really scary," but Superman's is still just... how does he even keep that thing hidden under his clothes? Seriously?

Not that I'd want anyone to get rid of Superman's cape, because he'd just look naked without it (to say nothing of Martian Manhunter, who'd pretty much BE naked without it), but you can't really apply the "it isn't realistic, even if it does look cool!" rationale to leather without applying it to capes.

Now, if you wanna say that leather costumes are a bad idea because they're lazy Matrix rip-offs, they're not faithful to the comics (did anyone hear how they wanted to give Superman a black, capeless outfit? And have him kung-fu fighting? God!), or that they're not distinctive enough, that's fine.

[Herr Logan]

Well, ummm... if leather is out, than shouldn't capes be too? Because I think The Incredibles kinda blasted that concept out of the water. At least Batman Begins gave Batman's cape some functionality beyond "looking really scary," but Superman's is still just... how does he even keep that thing hidden under his clothes? Seriously?

Not that I'd want anyone to get rid of Superman's cape, because he'd just look naked without it (to say nothing of Martian Manhunter, who'd pretty much BE naked without it), but you can't really apply the "it isn't realistic, even if it does look cool!" rationale to leather without applying it to capes.

Now, if you wanna say that leather costumes are a bad idea because they're lazy Matrix rip-offs, they're not faithful to the comics (did anyone hear how they wanted to give Superman a black, capeless outfit? And have him kung-fu fighting? God!), or that they're not distinctive enough, that's fine.
I'm not taking away Superman's cape for reasons I shouldn't ever have to explain. I'm not taking the Batman's cape away because not only is it functional in several different ways (without the memory-fabric gliding feature even factoring into it), but he's the Goddamn Batman, and the Goddamn Batman wears a Goddamn cape, always, no matter what.

Yes, the primary reason for not giving the X-Men black leather costumes is because they're lazy Matrix rip-offs that are not faithful to the comics. Also, they don't look cool. Not next to the real items, anyway. They're uninspired, uncreative designs that don't distinguish them from any other characters. Maybe Movie!Storm's was a good enough facsimile for her comics costume, but Wolverine wearing black leather, not wearing his distinctive mask and being 6'2" just looks idiotic. If he's not short, he can't possibly be Wolverine, and if he's wearing black leather, he doesn't look like Wolverine, period. I could handle Cyclops wearing a black leather suit if it was necessary, but it isn't and never will be necessary. Dark blue fabric is good enough if there's a competent costume designer, film crew and director at work. I'm supposed to lower my standards because the "general audience" is fine with inadequate people doing inadequate work and getting paid way too much for it? I don't think so.

One reason I say it's important to stay reasonably faithful to the comics in terms of costumes is because it makes a positive statement. Are we ashamed of our heroes-- the real ones, that is-- or do we stand behind them? When even true, devout fans like myself have slight reservations about certain costume elements, are we creative enough to find either moderate replacements/alterations (ex., Wolverine wearing orange and black instead of yellow and blue, but in the same exact pattern as his classic tiger-striped costume) or reasons to justify keeping things the same (ex., having the Batman's trunks be a custom-built Kelvar rapelling harness, which should also be the case in the comics for practical reasons, since every other element of the costume has both clever practical and asthetic purposes behind them), or do we take the easy and cowardly way out and just stuff a formerly colorful or distinctive-looking hero into a leather catsuit and pat ourselves on the back for being "modern" and "in touch"? Do we have the balls to tell anyone who may give a damn where we are at any given moment they we are "going to see , and I'm damn excited to see one of my favorite superheroes truly brought to life on the screen," or do we try to save face and make flimsy excuses like, "it seems like a fun popcorn flick, and it's not too cheesy?"

I only make excuses like that when I see a film that has been watered down and tailored to suit non-fans who wouldn't admit to liking colorfully costumed superheroes. If I was off to see a true, fan-directed and fan-written Batman movie where the titular character was wearing dark gray tights instead of black rubber, harness-trunks instead of the outline of a speedo or no lines at all, had no perceivable love interest outside of maybe Catwoman, and where he was presented as a grim detective instead of a "primal, rage-filled beast" who needs to growl and slip into a Southern accent occasionally to scare his prey, I'd say I was damn excited that they finally got it right, not that "It's my duty as a critic and fan of the source material to see it so I can dissect it properly for my loyal audience," or "Well, at least it's not 'Batman & Robin.'"

I want to feel good about being of the consumers that not only helped make a given superhero property popular and profitable enough to warrant a movie franchise, but also truly [I]gets what's unique about the characters and doesn't need the false promise of "realism" to get me in the theater. I don't want to have to yearn for something better when I know that, even with an off-beat, strange and largely inaccessible character like the Batman, a widely popular and very profitable film could be made in a serious fashion that respects both the noirish detective elements and the fantastic superhero elements could be made.

I'm not ashamed of liking these characters, even though I've grown cynical and knowledgable enough to be somewhat disassociated with certain essential aspects of them (such as the no-killing policy, which is childish and ignorant in many ways), because I know it's not just kids' fare. I know that the colorful costumes and corny themes won't ruin it if they truly capture what's intelligent or "deep" about the characters and stories (the Spider-Man franchise in particular was a tremendous opportunity for an intelligent and entertaining character study, completely wasted, and if they didn't know what they were passing over, they simply aren't adult enough to see what's mature and insightful about it). I know that these franchises (admittedly some more than others) have the potential for both great profit and truly great art, all the while honoring the source material. If people think it can't be done, that it's too difficult to pull off, that it "won't work," then not only are those people far more "negative" than even I could ever hope to be, but they truly are just plain childish and/or ignorant and/or stupid. You can't tell me what can't be done and have credibility when you haven't put the thought into tit. Perhaps it's a doomed situation when the source material for several of the franchise I've been lobbying for were written and plotted by members of society with superior intelligence and artistic skill, since the vast majority of people aren't all that bright or thoughtful, but I think it's still worth it to try. If 'The Simpsons' can be one of the most popular sitcoms of all time while working on many different intellectual levels, so can superhero franchises.

Christ, I don't even know how I had that in me... I've been pretty unmotivated when it comes to this subject matter lately. Oh well. Thanks to Zaphod for tellin' it like it is and stoking the fire once again.

:wolverine

[Cullen]

Cullen, by definition of your arguement, Superman shouldn't be adapted into a movie/TV sereis/booksereis either, since the likeness to his secret-identity Clark Kent is nigh on picture perfect if not for the glasses, and they only cover the same amount of face but to an even lesser extent?First off, this is only my reason for not using Robin. Me as a creator. Anyone else who has no problem with writing for the character? I'm envious of.

On the Clark Kent front, I actually have no problem with his duality. By all appearances, Superman isn't hiding anything. He's not wearing a mask, hiding his voice, or really doing much to obscure his existance. He has all the appearance of having nothing to hide. Why would anyone assume that he has a secret identity? Why would he want one?

And if he did, why Clark Kent, of all people?

There's other points I could go into, but that's neither here nor there. For whatever reasons, be then legit or not, I can accepted Superman/Kent quicker than Robin/Dick.

Of course, it probably helps that I like Superman more than Robin.

Have you read my post on Robin and my explaining of the costume, including the mask, and how it could be reconciled for a movie to appear to make more sense? I'll dig it up and post a link to it here sometime later, but I basically took the costume and worked in a fleshed out reasoning for why Dick Grayson would wear a costume such as he does. The mask, aswell as the colours are explainable, it only takes some imagination to validate them. Sounds interesting to me. Like I said, if you can rationalize it enough so it works for you, that's fine. Might even work for me, too.

This is what filmmakers should have been doing from the very beggining, rather than coming up with excuses as to why particular costumes are un-realistic for screen, or apologist excuses for having them drastically altered. Take the 'X Men' movie sereis as a prime example: The costumes the X-Men wore in the comics are drastically altered, beyond recognition, into identical looking leather outfits for each team, presumably under the pretense that it looks "cooler" and more "realistic" than having the heroes go around in their brightly coloured uniforms like they did in the comics. Except of course for the fact that leather is a completely inhibiting, ridiculously impractical material for wearing in combat, and in performing the sheer number of bodily feats that the X-Men do. Herr has pointed this out many times before, but it is still a very valid arguement which all should take heed of, especially these filmmakers.

So called 'fans' thought is was clever when Cyclops made the "yellow-spandex" gag in X Men, but in all honesty, it takes far more talent, imagination and general respect for the source material, to adapt the original comic-book costumes and develop on them a reasoning for their use, rather than doing away with them all together in a show of laziness on the filmmakers part and coming up with a cheap gag to justify such a choice.Absolutely. While the changes made don't bother me nearly as much as they do Herr, most of them are needless.

[Herr Logan]

First off, this is only my reason for not using Robin. Me as a creator. Anyone else who has no problem with writing for the character? I'm envious of.

On the Clark Kent front, I actually have no problem with his duality. By all appearances, Superman isn't hiding anything. He's not wearing a mask, hiding his voice, or really doing much to obscure his existance. He has all the appearance of having nothing to hide. Why would anyone assume that he has a secret identity? Why would he want one?

I think it's a reasonable argument, the idea that Superman appears not to have a dual identity.
As for why he'd want one, I'd think it would be obvious. It's exactly what Jor-El said in the first Superman movie-- if people knew the civilian identity that he probably set up for himself (he couldn't know for sure, since he was dead by the time Kal-El reached Earth, obviously), he'd never have a moment for himself, as people would become dependent on his assistance and never let him rest.

And if he did, why Clark Kent, of all people?

Oh, come on, Cullen, that's also obvious. Why would Superman be a reporter? Because that's one of the quickest ways to stay on top of events.

There's other points I could go into, but that's neither here nor there. For whatever reasons, be then legit or not, I can accepted Superman/Kent quicker than Robin/Dick.

Of course, it probably helps that I like Superman more than Robin.

Sounds interesting to me. Like I said, if you can rationalize it enough so it works for you, that's fine. Might even work for me, too.

Absolutely. While the changes made don't bother me nearly as much as they do Herr, most of them are needless.

You don't have to be bothered as much as me. You just have to make suggestions about how to make more faithful movies (that you truly believe in) if you're going to echo the kind of arguments that professional non-fans like Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale have been making.

:wolverine

[Cullen]

Oh, come on, Cullen, that's also obvious. Why would Superman be a reporter? Because that's one of the quickest ways to stay on top of events.I'm not arguing his reasoning for being Clark. Just why people wouldn't suspect Clark of being Superman. (All though in this age of instant news, he could pick Cable News and get his info as quick)
You don't have to be bothered as much as me. You just have to make suggestions about how to make more faithful movies (that you truly believe in) if you're going to echo the kind of arguments that professional non-fans like Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale have been making.

:wolverineWhich was, I hope, all that I was doing.

[Herr Logan]

I'm not arguing his reasoning for being Clark. Just why people wouldn't suspect Clark of being Superman. (All though in this age of instant news, he could pick Cable News and get his info as quick)
I really couldn't say how much sooner you can get information from being in a professional newsroom than from checking the Internet, but considering how fast Superman moves, I think it makes all the difference if he can get to the scene of a catastrophe or crime a few minutes or seconds sooner. I know there's a difference between hearing "There's a doin's a-transpirin'! Little Billy done fell in the well again!" and actually reading a paragraph or more full of cogent sentences laying out a confirmed situation. I somehow doubt the likelihood of Superman signing onto his Yahoo account to check his non-work e-mail (so he can tell his mother he'll be stopping by Smallville, Kansas in a couple of hours to pick up the cookies she's made, or something... you wouldn't want to say anything like that on a work e-mail, because even reporters can't travel that distance commercially that quickly, and they could be monitoring the e-mails, as businesses sometimes do) and seeing a news blurb on the homepage that says "Bank Robbery in Progress, High-Tech Weapons Used." He could see "High-Tech Weapons Used in Robbery Lead to Casualties" after the fact, but obviously that wouldn't be as useful.

Which was, I hope, all that I was doing.
This time...

:wolverine

[Beelze]

If Clark worked anywhere else, he would have to go out of his way to check the news. You can't be a pizza delivery boy and watch TV, surf the internet, etc., during work. However, if you're a journalist, you can do so, and no one would think it weird. And if he didn't have any job, he'd have a hard time establishing a realistic alter ego, or at least one with a good network of contacts and some manner of social life. It helps him do his crime fighting, just like being a rich playboy makes it possible for Bruce to not have to work, and instead spend his time fighting and investigating crime, all the while still having the necessary funds to keep him going.

[Zaphod]

This is pretty much all the ground I would deem completely neccesary to cover in Bruce's training abroad in 'The Batman':

Bruce at the FBI: Bruce practicing with firearms, aiming only for disabling shots (this would be highlighted somehow), Bruce practicing criminologist techniques, forensic sciences. Bruce becoming disenchanted with the impracticalities of the system and resigning from the FBI.
Bruce at Kirigi's monastery: Bruce ascends a mountain edge, travels through the Paektusan mountains and valleys -- voiceover narrates the majority of this sequence, filling in the blanks of how Bruce travelled to more unasvoury locations after leaving Washington and learned from the denizens of the streets. Flashbacks to other similar training in small snippets. Bruce comes to Kirigi's mansions, meditates in the lobby (which would initiate a flashback to Bruce in Gotham) and then practices under Kirigi. Performs chores before learning much of what he did under Ra's in 'Begins' (shruiken, ninjitsu, explosive powders, invisibility etc) and also more, before leaving.
Bruce with Shaman/Dogget: Bruce awakes from unconciousness and finds himself in an Alaskan Shaman village. He enquires with the leader of the tribe how he came to be there and the tribal leader tells him to go and meditate on his thoughts to discover for himself. Bruce does so, and we cut to a flashback of Bruce with Dogget. Straight translation of TMWF with Bruce and Dogget as partners tracking a fugitive, Dogget is killed and the only difference would be that Bruce refuses to do the same to the killer, who would still die through accident in a struggle, in which Bruce also falls unconcious and is later discovered by the Shaman. When Bruce snaps out of the flashback, he spends time with the Shaman and learns totemy. I'm thinking we can skip Ducard and his story, or at the very least show it in one of the minor flashbacks mentioned in the second part of Bruce's journey. Thoughts?

[Herr Logan]

This is pretty much all the ground I would deem completely neccesary to cover in Bruce's training abroad in 'The Batman':
Bruce at the FBI: Bruce practicing with firearms, aiming only for disabling shots (this would be highlighted somehow), Bruce practicing criminologist techniques, forensic sciences. Bruce becoming disenchanted with the impracticalities of the system and resigning from the FBI.
Bruce at Kirigi's monastery: Bruce ascends a mountain edge, travels through the Paektusan mountains and valleys -- voiceover narrates the majority of this sequence, filling in the blanks of how Bruce travelled to more unasvoury locations after leaving Washington and learned from the denizens of the streets. Flashbacks to other similar training in small snippets. Bruce comes to Kirigi's mansions, meditates in the lobby (which would initiate a flashback to Bruce in Gotham) and then practices under Kirigi. Performs chores before learning much of what he did under Ra's in 'Begins' (shruiken, ninjitsu, explosive powders, invisibility etc) and also more, before leaving.
Bruce with Shaman/Dogget: Bruce awakes from unconciousness and finds himself in an Alaskan Shaman village. He enquires with the leader of the tribe how he came to be there and the tribal leader tells him to go and meditate on his thoughts to discover for himself. Bruce does so, and we cut to a flashback of Bruce with Dogget. Straight translation of TMWF with Bruce and Dogget as partners tracking a fugitive, Dogget is killed and the only difference would be that Bruce refuses to do the same to the killer, who would still die through accident in a struggle, in which Bruce also falls unconcious and is later discovered by the Shaman. When Bruce snaps out of the flashback, he spends time with the Shaman and learns totemy.I'm thinking we can skip Ducard and his story, or at the very least show it in one of the minor flashbacks mentioned in the second part of Bruce's journey. Thoughts?
I think I've mentioned that I don't want to spend too much time with the FBI, or with Dogget. I guess I don't want to make a solid plot with Ducard, either, but I think it's important that he be featured, since at least one very key scene in the movie (straight from 'Year One') is in line with the lessons Ducard taught him. I never saw a fleshed out story with Dogget, but it was said in TMWF that he was a gentle soul, whereas we know that Henri Ducard was a brutal, self-serving but also brilliant detective (of sorts) and that he taught Bruce the value of brutality and coercion when dealing with other men. Ninjas and mystics can teach Bruce a lot about becoming a "terrible thought" and a creature of the night, but there's something to be said for a man strong-arming what he wants out of people, especially since this Batman adaptation is supposed to have a very strong noirish, hardboiled quality. It would be interesting to see how the Batman deals with different criminals, balancing and/or switching tactics, depending on whom he's dealing with. He can convince thuggish, arrogant and/or intoxicated people (like Jefferson Skeevers) that he's an invincible monster with visual tricks and physical prowess, he can impress more intelligent and well-established criminals with his cunning and single-mindedness (Carmine Falcone, the Penguin), and he can scare people who don't like pain too much by the fact that he's large, strong, not very nice and knows how to fight.

What the hell was my point again?

Yeah, anyway, the more I think about it, the more I'd prefer to keep the origin relatively confined so that it doesn't detract from everything else. I don't want it to seem like he had a lot invested in the FBI when he joined, since I'm pretty sure he was skeptical about the usefulness of that venture going in. Granted, he was still pretty young when he joined, but he studied a lot of other varied skills before he even attempted to join. I don't want it to seem like he lost faith in the legal system at age 20. I want him to have lost faith before he ever had any real faith or understanding of the system. At the same time, I think it's important that it be clear later on that he does respect the system, which is why he's willing to go to great lengths to cooperate with the agents of the system who are willing to put the work in to do the right thing. One theme I've always had in mind here was Alfred and Leslie Thompkins worrying about Bruce's extreme behavior throughout his life and how dangerous he could be if he simply decided not to restrain himself. It will be clear in the first movie that, while he lives on the edge (of safety, humanity and sanity), he has not fallen into the abyss. He has not gotten "lost." While he lacked focus earlier on, he didn't lack motivation and he he's more in control of his life than others believe. He will not cross certain lines. But yes, he knows early on that he has to work outside the system even to assist it. He's always had to have his own way, which is why he's seen driving extremely fast cars and flying around the globe unattended as a young teenager.

I don't want the audience getting attached to characters like Willie Dogget, especially since neither you nor I know much about him anyway. I'd be fine with having Dogget die during a case as long as it's not too highly emphasized in an emotional manner. The same should go with Ducard repulsing Bruce. These segments should be brief, informative and somewhat spread out so they don't seem like a string of half-hearted attempts at storytelling. The meat of the story should be in Gotham City and at the Wayne Estate.
A lot of this is probably review, I know. I just feel we haven't talked about this in a long time and I forgot where we've left things.

In addition to having Bruce voiceover that he's learned from the "denizens of the streets," it should also be made clear that he's studied directly under known murderers. There's plenty to name on that front (David Cain, Lady Shiva, some ex-con or escaped convict on a beach in Borneo, etc.). This sets him up as ready to learn and adapt from people like the Penguin when they hit him in unexpected ways once he returns to Gotham. This lends weight to Alfred's concerns about Bruce, when he learns the kinds of things he'd been doing throughout those 12 years abroad. While I don't want it to seem that the Batman is unstable and a complete loose cannon, I want it made clear he's grown "comfortable" walking on the dark side of life and, while he still retains a very strong moral code, he can see the value in learning from criminals and adapting tactics, so long as he's got the control over what happens because of it.

A suggestion for Bruce's encounter with the Shaman:
This Shaman said something similar to what Kirigi said about Bruce being marked by violence. I'd like for it to sound as if he might be willing and/or able to offer Bruce methods of ridding himself of this, but before he ever makes an offer, Bruce asks him if he can further teach him to use that darkness. Bruce will notice the tometic bat mask in his dwelling, and while his instinct is to leave and not subject himself to further flashbacks to the traumatic incidents of his life, he asks the Shaman why he has the mask, and then if he would show him the mental transformation the mask brings. Perhaps there could be an almost hallucinogenic moment where the Shaman wears the mask, gets "in character" and actually visually transforms in Bruce's mind, terrifying him. It's basically Bruce subjecting himself to an indirect form of "immersion therapy." This is what helps speed his journey home. Another theme I've got in mind is that Bruce spent so long outside of Gotham because he's actually afraid to go back. By exposing himself to more and more danger and darkness, he's sort of inocculating himself, or building up a tolerance, so home doesn't seem quite so scary. Or it could be seen as "soaking up" the darkness, so that when he does home to what is widely known as the crime capital of the world and to a house that sits on top of thousands of shrieking, winged horrors that haunt his dreams every night, he'll have something to fight it with. The psychological/horror themes will alternate, if not blend, with the strategic/detective themes once he's settled into his new identity. A lot of this sounds very abstract, I realize. I'm kind of scatter-brained at the moment, so I apologize.

If I sounded overly critical earlier, it was not my intent. I guess the more I think about the flaws of 'Batman Begins' (not to say it still isn't one of the better superhero adaptations out there, for whatever that's worth), and especially when I see some hardcore anti-source material Hype member say things like how he doesn't want to see the Batman being a full-on detective in the 'Begins' sequel (it's so offensive, I can't bring myself to link or quote it, but I saw it recently in a thread and I've been trembling with rage and horror ever since) because it's still too early in the game, the more I want to move away from a detailed globe-trotting origin and more towards a Batman movie that gets down to business and actually takes the mythos seriously. The origin is important, but the intricacies of the plots that occurred outside of Gotham are not as important as the Batman looking out for his city and being well on his way to being the World's Greatest Detective.



On a somewhat random note, I've been thinking lately that in our second Batman film, I do want to play up the fact that the Joker truly likes having the Batman in his life and starts taking the Batman's interference into consideration for all his big plans and enjoying it to a significant degree. This wouldn't be any blatant sexual vibe like some of the immature psychological thriller wannabes keep clammering for. Well, some of them are just really zealous Miller fans, I guess, but while I'm insistent that we feature much of the core elements of 'Batman: Year One' and I'm also strongly in favor of the movie actually sharing that title (but I'm not demanding it, so don't worry), it's more clear now than ever that Miller isn't a good role model for Batman writers (see 'All Star Batman & Robin' for proof). Anyway, it wouldn't be a sexual thing as much as a "Mommy, I made a really cool new friend at school today" thing. The Joker feels more "complete" now that he's caught the attention of the Batman and can torment him with every victim he harms. The Batman takes him seriously (although not strictly as a performer, which is the Joker's claim to fame) and will now be there for every performance he possibly can. That's kind of reminiscent of "I don't keep track of my victims (but you do, don't you, and I love you for it)." The Riddler has a similar dynamic, but it's not as strong, since having the Batman outsmarting him is often more trouble than it's worth, but the Joker doesn't need to put a lot of effort into being rational and cognitively superior.
Anyway, I'm thinking that the Joker may actually surrender to the Batman at the end of the movie when he's about to be taken by force, rather than fight to the last breath (he'll still fight, of course, just not in a "live free or die" kind of way). He realizes that if he dies, there's no more fun to be had, and if he kills the Batman somehow without killing them both, he'll miss their encounters, so he lets himself be taken instead. That doesn't mean he'll never try to kill the Batman, just that once in a while (usually toward the end of a movie, or at the end of his part in it) he'll pass up the opportunity if he doesn't think it's as dramatic an opportunity as it could be.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

I honestly don't remember if I've said this before, but if there was any justice in this cold, cruel world, not only could Zaphod and I make a multi-film live action Batman franchise that honors the character as faithfully as (if not more than) the animated series (the good one, not the recent one), but we (or just I, if Zaphod wasn't interested) could make a Batman/Superman movie and give it its proper title: World's Finest. If it was necessary to add their names to the title, that's fine ('World's Finest: Batman and Superman,' or 'Batman and Superman: World's Finest'), but it should never, ever be called 'Batman vs. Superman.' How much of any full length movie would really feature the Batman actually fighting against Superman? They'd have their little spat, realize (or remember, depending on the context) that they want the same things out of life (to protect people) and then team up for the duration. It's not an appropriate title. I don't give a rat's ass if people somehow think putting a "vs." in there will put more asses in the seats; if the preceding Batman film franchise was done properly, and possibly a new and worthy Superman franchise as well, the asses would find their way into the seats just fine. No, that doesn't preclude a Superman/Batman fight or conflict, but I damn sure wouldn't want to see a large portion of the film devoted to a battle. Yes, they differ greatly in their respective personalities, but if you consider the full spectrum of human values and behavior, Superman and the Batman are extremely similar. They risk their lives to save people, they won't kill, and they go to great lengths to keep their secrets from the world.

I could go with a story where they meet for the first time, but I do not want to do it like John Byrne wrote it for Post-Crisis, or at least not with the same villain. Magpie?! Oh, there's a worthy foe for the greatest heroes of the DC Universe! It should probably be a very large-scale threat. In fact, this may be the right movie to bring in R'as Al Ghul (the real one) and his daughter, Talia. R'as is a global threat, so he definitely warrants Superman's attention.

There would of course be no serious love triangle, involving Lois Lane or anyone else, unlike in the animated 'World's Finest' movie. I'd be okay with Bruce Wayne dating Lois briefly as maybe an entrance path to the two heroes taking an interest in each other ("Why are you following me?" "Why were you planting wire taps in the Daily Planet building?"), but not with there being real feelings outside of lust (on Lois' part, mainly), and Lois certainly shouldn't learn his secret identity. I don't know whether or not it would make any sense to put Talia in a love triangle between the two heroes (R'as could certainly see the benefit in making such a powerful man his disciple and heir), but it ain't gonna happen, period. That would be crass and stupid, like any love triangle created for a superhero adaptation that wasn't in the comics.

I definitely would want either hero's own franchise to be made in such a way that there's no reasonable grounds for claiming they couldn't plausibly co-exist in the same world. Anyone who saw or read about my Batman franchise and said, "It's grounded in reality, it wouldn't work to have him interacting with a superpowered alien" would be firmly commanded to go stand in the corner and never come out. Yes, it's largely free of actual superpowers, but that doesn't mean they don't or can't exist. I just happen to prefer the non-powered villains to the ones with powers when it comes to putting them in Batman movies. A character like Clayface or the Man-Bat or any other scientific freak of nature cannot simply be a marginal villain without making it seem like a cheap throw-in for lip service. A character like that should be front and center, with some decent science-fiction surrounding their origin. However, I don't consider Clayface and the Man-Bat as worthy of a star villain spot in a movie as the Joker, Riddler, Two-Face, the Scarecrow, and Scarface. Wait... oh yeah, I'd want Mr. Freeze as a primary villain, so that's a major sci-fi foe right there. Also, I'd consider Poison Ivy. Again, it's not at all about "realism," it's about who's best for the movie format for an optimum viewing experience for both hardcore fans and casual viewers.
When it comes to the Batman's universe, superpowered beings are optional, since he has more than enough "normal " (biologically speaking) humans gunning for him. In Superman's universe, at this point, he requires a superpowered foe, even in the first movie of a new franchise (and yes, I would definitely start over... I'm not willing to try and clean up Brian Singer's "chick flick" mess and try to force a lame horse to walk in the mud, but I'm willing to shoot that horse out of mercy and get a new one that I'd treat a hell of a lot better than Singer would), period. Yes, it's all well and good to show Lex Luthor flex his brain and bank account muscles and give Superman a rough time without any real physical power, but that's not enough. While he'll always have a special place in my heart for being the hook that got me into superheroes for life, I don't hesitate in saying that in comparison to other superhero characters that have risen since his first appearance, Superman isn't a character who I think can go without a serious physical threat from a superbeing in a movie and not have it be seen by even true fans as a huge wasted opportunity. First and foremost, he's an action hero. He's not dumb, he's not utterly bland, but he's not complex and interesting enough to carry a movie on just his personality or personal life without leaving a discerning viewer feeling cheated. Remember, I said not complex and interesting enough-- I'm not saying he isn't those things at all.

Anyway, I think the Batman is the perfect foil for Superman, and vice versa. Superman can actually appear quite smart even alongside the World's Greatest Detective, even though he'll never be as sharp as the Batman (because no one is). If he can just get the Batman to give him a small nod of approval while talking strategy, that tells the audience "this guy isn't just a muscle-head, he's a thinking hero that only looks inferior next to the best."
One of the best things about having the Batman work with other heroes is that it can show off the Batman's arrogance and borderline behavior with regard to his would-be peers. You don't get that as much when he's solo or working only with agents of the law.

Anyway, gotta go. Just some thoughts on this subject. Again, although each character's stories shown seperately would be largely different in tone, it would never be so drastically different that they couldn't appear together and have them retain their own qualities and most of their habits.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

You know what happens when you guys don't respond or propose or discuss anything? I start clicking on the "New Posts" link. Know what happens then?

I end up seeing threads that speculate about Nolan's Movie!Two-Face where multiple people say horrible, senseless things like how it would be "unrealistic" and "gimmicky" for Two-Face to wear a suit that's two different colors, split down the middle!!

If I hear anything like that in here from anyone, they'll get one final warning before they're cast out forever. I am so incredibly sick and tired of hearing these useless, mindless sheep bleat out these ridiculous statements. Unrealistic? I'm sorry, was I mistaken when I got the impressions (that were re-confirmed, over and over for several years) that 1) Two-Face is insane, and 2) the Batman universe is nothing but "gimmicky." Seriously, there is no possible way to spin it in such a way that the entire basis of the Batman character, his entire rogues gallery and the entire mythos isn't completely devoted to a network of several distinctive, blatantly stated gimmicks. He dresses up like a bat. He uses bat-themed equipment and vehicles. He is called "Batman," and has never not been know as that. Every single one of his most prominent villains are inextricably bound to a pervasive, overt gimmick.

I can't say for certain if Two-Face has ever been shown in the comics in something other than a two-colored or two-patterned outfit split down the middle when he had dressed himself (as opposed to being in a prison outfit, hospital gown, straight-jacket, tattered rags or deliberate disguise, etc.) and had his mental illness active and in control of his being. Maybe someone else can shed some light on that and give an example. Even if there are examples, there is no valid argument that says his appearance isn't widely known to include that kind of outfit. There is no valid argument that says it isn't every kind of possible to have such a suit made, not only by cobbling it together in an amateur style at home but to actually have it professionally or at least comptently done. There is no valid argument that says that it is unrealistic for him to dress that way considering his mental condition, which is in itself questionable in its nature. Two-Face doesn't have "multiple personality disorder," or disassociative identity disorder as it's now technically know. He has never been widely known to behave that way, even if they did use that terminology. Arnold Wesker, aka the Ventriloquist and Two-Face, are also supposed to have that disorder, and while it may also not be "realistic," it's certianly closer to the truth than Two-Face. Two-Face has some kind of psychotic disorder that makes him behave the way he does, but he doesn't have two distinct personalities that alternate control, at least not how it usually is in real life (and keep in mind that "usually" doesn't even happen very often, as true MPD/DID is very rare). I say with no hesitation that the Hulk is a more "realistic" example of a multiple personality case, psychologically speaking.

I also don't want to hear any bull***** about the Joker's purple suit, which isn't the least bit realistic, because the Joker is not only the ultimate attention whore, but he’s based on a clown theme, and is therefore supposed to look somewhat ridiculous. Having a suit of that style with those colors is a perfect fusion of the clown gimmick and the film noir style of the Batman universe (especially with the purple trench coat and fedora). I already explained either earlier in this thread or in the original thread (the links for which are somewhere in that list at the beginning of this thread, probably in the lower half) about how the Joker is not the “movie monster” in the Batman universe . He’s not the creature from ‘Alien’ or Hannibal Lecter, etc. First and foremost, he is not a serial killer and he does not sneak around in back alleys stabbing people.
The same goes for Scarecrow. Dr. Crane is a completely delusional maniac who wants to be seen in a scarecrow outfit. I don’t want to hear any bull***** about how that can’t look scary onscreen, because I know for an irrefutable fact that it can. Hell, even on that idiotic show ‘Supernatual,’ there was a scarecrow-looking thing that, despite the pitiful budget and overall lack of quality of the show, looked pretty scary. While I would not want to go with the overcoat and huge shoulders of the revamped Scarecrow on ‘The New Batman/Superman Adventures,’ I’m fine with a more gruesome-looking mask and the hangman’s rope around the neck.

Hell, I’m making it just a general rule: Nobody is allowed to say in this thread that any given character’s most-used costume should be thrown out completely. There’s room for debate about whether a certain character’s costume is particularly “iconic” as opposed to something else they’ve been known to wear, and there’s room to suggest minor alterations and the exclusion of specific features within reason (ex., the Riddler’s costume can have fewer question marks and can potentially replace the domino mask with shaded glasses, but there must be at least one prominent question mark on the costume, and if the mask is replaced by sunglasses, the lenses need to be either noticeably tinted purple or green in color, because he has almost always worn a green or purple accessory over his eyes period!), but I don’t want to hear any flat-out dismissals. Yes, there’s subjectivity, but I will not tolerate people writing off essential aspects of the source material, and I do not accept that well-known costumes aren’t essential, because they absolutely are when it comes to superhero comics.

Some examples of restrictions:
The Joker most often wears a well-tailored purple suit, not tattered, blood-soaked rags, and has chalk-white skin, not a mask or removable face paint. Period!. He could even wear something more clown-themed, like an actual clown costume for a few scenes, but he needs to be established as wearing the purple suit most of the time. Yes, his suit can turn into rags through fighting, etc., but he prides himself on his look and is not some barefoot, alley-dwelling misfit who doesn’t care how people view him (even though he’s perfectly happy to have people think ill of him in terms of his values, actions, or sanity).
The Riddler wears a green outfit with question marks on it. Period! I prefer a suit to tights for him by far, but if someone says they want to see tights in a live-action movie, nobody is allowed to simply say “that’s stupid” or “unrealistic,” because it is an irrefutable fact that the Riddler has been known to wear suit an outfit in the comics, and is therefore faithful. Express your preferences, make suggestions, or debate which one is “more iconic,” but do not make blatant dismissals, and do not mock without offering constructive comments of one sort or another.
Two-Face wears a suit that is two distinct colors or patterns, split down the middle. Period! I won’t make it a rule, but I contend that whatever kind of suit he’s wearing, the jacket would most likely be double-breasted, for obvious reasons.
The Scarecrow wears a full Scarecrow costume. Period!
Catwoman wears a mask or cowl with cat ears. Period! I personally dislike the purple bodysuit and the fake tail, but if someone likes it, the same rules apply as with the previous examples. Be constructive or ignore people’s stated preference.
Victor Zsasz has tally-mark scars on the majority of the surface area of his skin, not just a few on his neck. Period!
R’as Al Ghul is an eco-terrorist (as opposed to merely having a generalized sociological agenda), is known to have lived in Arabic regions for a good chunk of his life, and has been alive for hundreds of years and has pulled that off by renewing his life in naturally-occurring wells of rare chemicals (as opposed to using modern technology, and yes, there is an essential distinction). Period! I’d accept the suggestion of artificially replicating the Lazarus Pit chemicals, but the first few times, it has to be directly from a naturally occurring, reasonably untampered-with source. I know this isn’t a costume issue, but it occurred to me as essential traits that reflect the “essence” of the character. It’s fine to have him using modern technology to carry out his twisted plans and to also have him take an interest in the politics of “justice” and martial arts, as long as everything previously mentioned is respected.
Several versions of Clayface in the comics have had superpowers, so using any of them is not “stupid” or “unrealistic.” No superpowers are “unrealistic” to the point that they automatically “don’t work” in a Batman movie. Period! The first Clayface, Basil Karlo, had no superpowers and simply wore the mask of a villain from a horror film he did once while he killed the cast and crew of a remake of that film that offended him to the extreme. It’s fine to use this version and exclude the fact that Karlo later received the shape-shifting of other Clayfaces, because that’s still faithful, but it’s not okay to attack someone for using a different Clayface.

Okay. Now that’s out of my system. Thank you for your time.

:wolverine

[Cullen]

If you're not going to make Clayface a giant monstrous shapeshifter, then you're settling for less. The visuals alone are worth it.

Catwoman, I feel, doesn't need the tail. She needs to be athletic, but not overly inflated, if you know what I mean and I think you do. There is only so much my heart can take.

Joker needs the color purple. Purple is the color of royalty. Joker is the Clown Prince of Crime. It fits.

Two Face needs half a face that would give Freddy Kruger nightmares. I'm not sure about the half black, half white dress scheme, unless he makes his own outfits. For some reason that appeals. Oh, and he bases his decisons on a coin flip. He never reflips.

Killer Moth needs to stay away from bug zappers. Yeesh, what a mess he'll make.

The Riddler has that damn ridiculous mask thing going on. I'm not saying ditch the costume. Rather, he delivers his riddles using a computer animated avatar that appears just like his classic costume.

OR, he's hired a bunch of henchmen and they all dress a like. Damn near duplicates. That might work as well.

Maybe both. I don't think it's been done that often in Batman, and I don't think it's out of character.

Hopefully none of this has strayed into unforgivable.

[Zev]

I'd be happy if Riddler had that green suit, derby hat, and jacket thing he had in the early TAS days. Now THAT was classy. It wouldn't break my heart if he ended up in the skintight leotard, but that suit is pimp.

It would also not break my heart if they actually just cast John Glover to play Riddler. Just give him a shave and a haircut, throw a green domino mask on him... Johnny-boy's been trapped in the not-so-great Smallville for ages and damnit, I don't want the only comic book movie he got to do be Batman & Robin (luckily, he didn't embarrass himself too much because the part was only really a cameo)!

[Herr Logan]

If you're not going to make Clayface a giant monstrous shapeshifter, then you're settling for less. The visuals alone are worth it.

Catwoman, I feel, doesn't need the tail. She needs to be athletic, but not overly inflated, if you know what I mean and I think you do. There is only so much my heart can take.

Joker needs the color purple. Purple is the color of royalty. Joker is the Clown Prince of Crime. It fits.

You're a good man, Cullen. :up:

Two Face needs half a face that would give Freddy Kruger nightmares. I'm not sure about the half black, half white dress scheme, unless he makes his own outfits. For some reason that appeals.

And now I'm reconsidering. :mad:

I didn't say his suit had to be plain black and white. I'm not opposed to it, but I'm not insisting that it be black and white. I do insist, for the purposes of this thread and in terms of what I expect from a Batman movie, that Two-Face wear a suit that is split between two distinct colors and/or patterns.
When you say "unless he makes his own outfits," what does that mean? You mean he has to sew his own clothes? Feh! It is much, much more accurate to the character for Two-Face to force a high-end tailor to do it for him. He should flip his coin to see whether he'll actually pay for it, with an option to shoot the guy if it comes up bad heads, to remove a witness. Personally, I'd have it turn up good heads, to demonstrate that it is in fact all about the coin, not just about his mood swings.

Oh, and he bases his decisons on a coin flip. He never reflips.

God damn right! :up:

Killer Moth needs to stay away from bug zappers. Yeesh, what a mess he'll make.

Nice non-sequiter.

The Riddler has that damn ridiculous mask thing going on. I'm not saying ditch the costume. Rather, he delivers his riddles using a computer animated avatar that appears just like his classic costume.

OR, he's hired a bunch of henchmen and they all dress a like. Damn near duplicates. That might work as well.

Maybe both. I don't think it's been done that often in Batman, and I don't think it's out of character.

I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. Delivers his riddles with an animated avatar? So, that means he doesn't actually show up anywhere?

I'll say it one more time: Riddler wears a green costume with question marks on it, and a purple or green eyemask. Period!!!

Hopefully none of this has strayed into unforgivable.

That last one is seriously pushing it. Behave yourself or be destroyed!!


And thanks for posting. :o

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

I'd be happy if Riddler had that green suit, derby hat, and jacket thing he had in the early TAS days. Now THAT was classy. It wouldn't break my heart if he ended up in the skintight leotard, but that suit is pimp.

It would also not break my heart if they actually just cast John Glover to play Riddler. Just give him a shave and a haircut, throw a green domino mask on him... Johnny-boy's been trapped in the not-so-great Smallville for ages and damnit, I don't want the only comic book movie he got to do be Batman & Robin (luckily, he didn't embarrass himself too much because the part was only really a cameo)!

Oh yeah, that suit is classy. I'd also give him a green bowler hat. Also, the question mark cane. In my movie, he would definitely be modeled on the Animated Series version. I personally would not choose John Glover for the part, only because he doesn't really look like the Riddler. While he did a great job with the voice, that's not something only he could do, and I'd be going for the whole package. I'm sure I could find a good role for John Glover somewhere in the franchise, though, because he is a good actor.
I'd have the Riddler show up in person at a lot of his crime scenes, making sure his goons do the job right. He may or may not have female bodyguards.

I'd probably base most of the villains on the Animated Series, especially the Joker, the Riddler, Two-Face, Mr. Freeze and probably the Scarecrow to a degree.

I think I would definitely have Killer Croc in one of the movies, either as hired muscle or an a minor villain (either solo, partnered with someone else, or running his own small crew) in a brief robbery/fight sequence. His look and voice would be largely modelled on the 'New Batman/Superman Adventures" version.

I might also want to use Firefly as a minor "action villain," possibly as a hired arsonist working for someone with more profile. He'd have a jetpack and a reasonably faithful costume.

Scarface's voice and behavior would be very close to what it was on the Animated Series, Scarface although I'd feel obligated to use his actual speech patterns from the comics, where he can't throw B's and substitutes them with G's (ex., "Gatman and Rogin"). If George Dzundza looked anything like Arnold Wesker, I'd definitely choose him for the part. I honestly didn't think it was him doing the voices for both Wesker and Scarface. He's just that good. Hell, I'd be fine with dubbing Dzundza's voice for Scarface and leave Wesker's voice to whoever was actually playing the Ventriloquist on screen. One reason I'd insist that he have a part somewhere in the franchise, other than the creepiness and comedic value, is that he's the perfect fusion of film noir and psychological disorder villainy. Perfect for a film franchise that tries to capitalize on all the major cinematic themes of the Batman mythology.
Scarface/Ventriloquist would definitely have to be a mastermind villain, not any kind of hired help. It would be extremely disrespectful to lower his competence and take away his criminal brilliance. Hell, keeping him faithful is all that's needed to put down any anti-source material non-fans who think that using him is to "corny" or "unrealistic." Why would any sane criminal work for a guy who speaks through a dummy and actually thinks they're different people? Because he's a God damn genius and they need a planner to make a successful criminal career. It's also extremely creepy, the idea that within this timid, largely useless guy is an alternate personality that is not only much more forceful, but smarter than the original (I assume) personality.
I would say he'd be a major villain, but it would be alongside other criminal mastermind vilains doing their own thing, or possibly a team-up. While some villains don't make sense teaming up (Mr. Freeze working with anyone else in his first movie, for example), there's infinite room for hilarious character interactions between Scarface and anyone else.

I'd have the Penguin resemble the 'New Batman/Superman Adventures' version (which is what he looked like in the comics originally), not the hideous freak-baby version, but a little bit bulkier-looking than in the cartoon after the revamp. I want him to be able to actually fight a little. He would most likely also have gorgeous female bodyguards in scandalous outfits (not God damn kabuki makeup like in 'The Batman'), with the implication being that they could be dancers in one of his clubs (there would be no stripping, although they could imply that the Penguin owns a strip joint).

I think I mentioned before that after the second Batman movie, Harleen Quinzel would show up at Arkham Asylum and work closely with the Joker, so while I don't want Harley Quinn in the first movie with the Joker, there's every reason to include her. And oh yes, there would definitely need to be at least two hyenas (sp?) named Bud and Lou in their Ha-Hacienda.

Mr. Freeze would have a badass, armored, realistic exoskeleton. By "realistic," I only mean that there would be jointed pistons, etc. on the outside of the suit like the real-life strength-enhancing frames that actually do exist-- it would be designed to appeal visually to sci-fi and engineering buffs, not anti-source material cowards that want watered-down supervillains. Unlike in the 'New Batman/Superman Adventures' and 'Batman & Robin,' Mr. Freeze would not have supermodel-eque henchwenches in fur jackets, unless that's something he had often in the comics before 'Batman & Robin' came out. As an addition to the mythos, it doesn't strike me as making a lot of sense with his character theme, unlike with the Penguin, Joker or Riddler.

:wolverine

[kame-sennin]

You know what happens when you guys don't respond or propose or discuss anything? I start clicking on the "New Posts" link. Know what happens then?

I end up seeing threads that speculate about Nolan's Movie!Two-Face where multiple people say horrible, senseless things like how it would be "unrealistic" and "gimmicky" for Two-Face to wear a suit that's two different colors, split down the middle!!

Dear god in heaven, please stay away from the Nolan boards. Those fanboys are the most twisted sycophantic sheep I have ever encountered. I've seen these kids go on rants about how powerful Christian Bale's eyes are, and thus that they can never be covered by (sweet ass) lenses. There is actually a thread made only to discuss which villains wouldn't work in the films. Those guys just aint right, and it's best to avoid them.

That said, I just went over there and found something pretty interesting. I was hoping I might save others the trouble of visiting those boards, but I see I am unfortunatley too late. Anyway, these are supposed concepts for Batman's costume in the next Begins sequel:


http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i271/nwonknu2k/DecoBat.jpg
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i271/nwonknu2k/DECObatman1.jpg


To be perfectly honest, I feel that they are an improvement from what we've got so far. It's still a ways from what I'd want, but it's nice to see that they are at least moving in the right direction. How do you guys feel about them?

[Zev]

I feel it incumbent to mention that I finished Nightwing (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9344154), so if anyone wants to read a more or less faithful "Nightwing: Year One" have at it.

As for villains that wouldn't work in a Batman movie, Ten-Eyed Man. I think I read a story about him once. He got power from being able to see behind him. With his fingers. Hey, I can see reflections in the corner of my eyeglasses, but I don't go around calling it a superpower.

Killer Croc should look like what he is, a guy with a really bad skin condition that resembles a crocodile's hide. He shouldn't have a tail and a snout and look like a dragon, is what I'm saying. He should look more like he could be the villain in a slasher movie. Just hire Kane Hodder, throw some groovy make-up on him, and be done with it.

I don't know if Firefly would work as a minor action villain. His costume and methods (flamethrower AND jetpack) are so exotic that I don't think audiences would accept him just showing up for one action scene. I think with a little work, he could be the main villain's righthand man, similar to Kronen from Hellboy or Darth Maul from Star Wars.

In fact, an action sequence of Firefly setting fire to a building (maybe the Iceberg Lounge, if he's Penguin's minion) and trying to escape, Batman pursuing him, the chase eventually taking to the skies ala On Leather Wings... that would be pretty *****in'.

And as for Joker having a purple tuxedo and Two-Face having dual-colored outfits... How can you possibly complain about that? I can at least understand complaints about people wearing skintight spandex, but these are actual clothes that are just a bit more garish than usual (which fits, considering these are supervillains! They don't go around attending high tea, they go around breaking stuff!). I mean, even Schumacher gave Two-Face a two-colored suit. Schumacher. I don't know how someone can even admit to being or wanting to be less faithful to the comics than Schumacher. That's just like... whoa. I mean, that's like saying that the plot of the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie is too complicated. I never thought I'd see the day where people would say that a Disney movie is too byzantine, too complex, for their minds to follow, but... sheesh. And don't even get me started on the people who complain that the movie has no ending... because it ends on a cliffhanger. That's the whole point, you morons! Did Empire Strikes Back have an ending? NO! Did Back To The Future 2 have an ending? NO! Did the Two Towers have an ending? NO! You had to see the third movie to get the whole story! That's the main idea of the trilogy! Now, you want to talk about no endings, let's talk about Harry Potter! Six books so far, each one of them ends with "we've won a minor victory/suffered a minor defeat, but Voldemort is still out there." SIX BOOKS, NO ENDING! Let's see some shame on that one. Harry Potter, the hero who wins because his mommy loves him.

...

This is still a Batman thread, right?

Okay then.

Poison Ivy, I don't really care, as long as she's wearing something made of plants and scanty. That's pretty much been the only criteria of her costume for decades now and if you can't get that right, why are you even bothering?
Step 1. Cast a hot actress.
Step 2. Make her look hot.
THAT'S. ABOUT. IT.

The Darwyn Cooke costume for Catwoman seems to have stuck on, so I say go with that. It's a bit more functional than the purple bodypaint Jim Balent "no, she's not naked, because I'm not drawing her nipples" tailed costume. Besides, I'd like to see Herr Logan's head explode like one of those Star Trek robots when he tries to comprehend a costume that is both faithful to the comics and made of leather. "DOES NOT COMPUTE!"

[Herr Logan]

Dear god in heaven, please stay away from the Nolan boards. Those fanboys are the most twisted sycophantic sheep I have ever encountered. I've seen these kids go on rants about how powerful Christian Bale's eyes are, and thus that they can never be covered by (sweet ass) lenses. There is actually a thread made only to discuss which villains wouldn't work in the films. Those guys just aint right, and it's best to avoid them.
I know. I need help to stay away. It's like how I didn't used to be able to avoid checking up on 'Law & Order: Special Victims Unit,' 'Smallville' and that comic strip "Family Circus;" I have a morbid fascination with terrible and/or disturbing content.

I guess I've made my thoughts on those people and their twisted philosophies known. Just wanted to reinforce my views on that and how it applies to the law of this sacred land.

Yeah, the whole "which villains wouldn't work" thing is ridiculous. As I've said, the only reason I would claim any given villain "wouldn't work" in my film concepts is directly based on whether he/she would "work" in the story being told. Again, that has nothing to do with it being a "realistic world" or whatever bull***** people want so desperately to believe, but with the actual plot. I'm fine with having several separate plots going on, but there are still going to be a finite number of disparate subplots a storyteller can handle (that is not advocating people being lazy or underambitious, it's just my own way of reminding myself not to bite off more than I can chew, which I'm very predisposed to do). I don't think it's necessary for every villain plot to be intertwined, but it's a good thing to do when it faithfully reflects the characters (i.e., what certain characters would do in a faithful story, what they could reasonably accomplish and whom they would or would not team up with; for example, I don't know if it ever happened in the comics, but I have a hard time believing that a focused zealot like Poison Ivy would work with someone like the Joker or Victor Zsasz, but I can see opportunistic masterminds like the Penguin or Scarface working with almost anyone, within reason) and can fit in a well-made movie plot.
I know that villains like Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze could "work" in a movie if the filmmakers wanted to do it right. Hell, even Man-Bat and Clayface could. I just feel that those latter two characters should take a backseat to other primary villains more "deserving" of the screentime by virtue of their history with the Batman, who just happen to not have superpowers. If a person cannot blend science fiction and/or over-the-top theatrics with the gritty crime story atmosphere of Gotham City, then they have no business making a Batman movie, period! You either accept the mythos or you don't. Yeah, you can leave all kinds of high-profile events and milestones of the history out, and of course you must, but you should never, ever exclude major themes that have always been present in the primary medium in which the fictional property has thrived for decades. The Batman mythos is not just film noir, psychological thriller and martial arts. It's also sci-fi and melodrama.

That said, I just went over there and found something pretty interesting. I was hoping I might save others the trouble of visiting those boards, but I see I am unfortunatley too late. Anyway, these are supposed concepts for Batman's costume in the next Begins sequel:


http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i271/nwonknu2k/DecoBat.jpg
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i271/nwonknu2k/DECObatman1.jpg


To be perfectly honest, I feel that they are an improvement from what we've got so far. It's still a ways from what I'd want, but it's nice to see that they are at least moving in the right direction. How do you guys feel about them?
Wams did that, right? I think those are damn cool drawings.
Not faithful enough for the true Batman, but more so than Nolan's rubber suit.You pretty much summed it up with, "It's still a ways from what I'd want, but it's nice to see that they are at least moving in the right direction."

The first one is really not something I'd ever consider. There's no need for that "segmented shell" appearance. It's supposed to be fabric, people. It's not spandex, but it's also not rigid armor. It's Nomex and Kevlar, woven to be flexible enough for gymnastics and acrobatics. Period!

Wait... looking again at the colored version of the second one, I think that's actually really cool and not too far off from the real thing. I guess I could tolerate those seams on the bodysuit if it had to be a package deal (and I'm not saying it would be, I'm just saying if).
The belt seems built into the shorts. That works just fine with my concept of the shorts being a rappelling harness that connects to the belt. I'd prefer the belt be essentially separate in its basic form and connected to the harness with keepers, rather than built in, but if it was this whole package over the suit they're using now, I'd pick this one with no hesitation. Pretty much everything is just the right color (except I could go a bit darker with the belt segments), he's got lenses in his mask (again, I don't want to hear any bull***** about how an actor needs his eyes to play the Batman, as any actor and/or director who can't do the job right has no business being paid for the job they perform... the Batman isn't a soap star, he's a masked vigilante, and "emotion" is not what he's know best for!), the nose/beak isn't out of control like it is in 'Begins,' the cape has scallops and is just the right length, and overall it looks damned iconic.

Then again, one should never only consider things as package deals; there's always room for improvement. I'd definitely get rid of those seams, leaving him with a more organic look. I'd also change the boot shields so they didn't come up over the knee in one piece or have those points jutting out from the body. Furthermore, I'd make the ankle section more flexible and overall have everything resemble (in good lighting, which will not always be the case) armored boots used in military and law enforcement, not segmented steel plates. I'd have steel shanks where necessary (like in the boots and shins) and an overall flexible design, since he needs it to be as versatile as he is in the comics. The same goes for the gloves in terms of jutting points and length, and I'd also get rid of the knuckle studs. The Batsuit in the comics (as told by 'Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight') has smooth pouches of crushed lead shotover his knuckles, which adds force to his punches.
If I was to use the bat/elipse (it's not an oval, kids, it's a friggin' elipse), I'd make the bat bulkier, basically making it the trademarked Bat-symbol from the earlier Batman movie logos.

I don't remember if Wams or someone in his thread actually suggested this or if it was my idea that was inspired by this drawing when I first saw it months ago, or if I've mentioned it before in a Safe Haven thread, but here's an idea:
The yellow elipse behind the Bat-insignia could actually be a section of the costume that lights up. This is, of course, to draw attention to himself, and despite what any source material- hating heathens want you to believe, the Batman clearly wants people to see him, or else he wouldn't dress the way he does. He uses stealth, but only when he wants it. The great thing about the Batman is that he's the perfect blend of stealth and theatricality. It's just fecking heresy and stupidity to overlook the latter aspect, especially when all these studio apologists who use that pathetic argument against the concept of a gray bodysuit clearly love the movie which blatantly drove home that very point. Anyway, it can draw people's attention and/or blind them temporarily, and if it's very dark out, the place will seem even darker once the light goes out, and he's free to come at his prey from another angle entirely, misdirecting them. It could also replace his flashlight in an emergency, either if he can't reach it or has lost it or has both hands occupied and can't keep it in his mouth (the flashlight I'd have him use is a combination of his old miniature light and his current one: it has a rubber mouth-grip for easy hands-free use, and it also fits over a gloved finger and stays there; very versatile). However, he should prefer using his miniature flashlight, since it's more precise and easier to control, and he should also prefer his flashlight to using night-vision (which his mask lenses provide, of course) if what he's viewing is close up and indoors.
This chest-light could also be used like Spider-Man's spider-signal, both announcing his arrival and also pointing at defeated criminals when the cops arrive (and he'll disappear right after they see what he's indicating). This isn't a feature I'd insist on, but it's an option. Tell me what you think.

I don't think much of Wams as a person (we're not going to talk about why in here, so if you want to discuss it, use PMs), but if he's the one who actually drew those pictures, he's definitely got my respect as an artist.


Thanks much for posting, Kame-sennin. :up:

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

I feel it incumbent to mention that I finished Nightwing (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9344154), so if anyone wants to read a more or less faithful "Nightwing: Year One" have at it.
Congrats! :up:

As for villains that wouldn't work in a Batman movie, Ten-Eyed Man. I think I read a story about him once. He got power from being able to see behind him. With his fingers. Hey, I can see reflections in the corner of my eyeglasses, but I don't go around calling it a superpower.
I've never been a long-time avid collector of Batman comics (until a couple years ago, I guess, when I realized that Marvel Comics were no longer worth paying for but felt I still had to buy at least one thing per visit to the comics store if I was going to keep reading various comics while there), but I've done a good amount of research on the mythos as a whole. If I haven't heard of the Ten-Eyed Man, and he requires as much origin/exposition as I assume he would, then he probably shouldn't be in a Batman movie. Again, it's not about the "reality" of it, it's about... I dunno... "street cred" or whatever. Again, if I ain't heard of this guy, he's a nobody, so leave him out if he can't be anything but a cameo that doesn't raise too many questions.

Killer Croc should look like what he is, a guy with a really bad skin condition that resembles a crocodile's hide. He shouldn't have a tail and a snout and look like a dragon, is what I'm saying. He should look more like he could be the villain in a slasher movie. Just hire Kane Hodder, throw some groovy make-up on him, and be done with it.
I don't know who Kane Hodder is.

Since when did Killer Croc have a tail? Of course there wouldn't be a tail. Not unless I'm wrong about him not being known for having a tail in the comics.

I'd have him be a very large man with leathery, greenish-gray skin, abnormal bone structure, especially around the face (I'm not talking about a snout, I'm talking about making him somewhat resemble the original BTAS version, with those monstrous jaws), and yes, he'd have sharp teeth. He'd also have abnormally great strength, just like in the comics. This is a character who was born that way (physically speaking... that doesn't explain his antisocial behavior necessarily), so he doesn't require a lot of backstory (like Clayface or Man-Bat, who were created, not born monsters). Say he was born a freak, very likely abused throughout his early life and now he's a stone killer with near-inhuman strength. Nothing about that that "wouldn't work." Not in the least.

I don't know if Firefly would work as a minor action villain. His costume and methods (flamethrower AND jetpack) are so exotic that I don't think audiences would accept him just showing up for one action scene. I think with a little work, he could be the main villain's righthand man, similar to Kronen from Hellboy or Darth Maul from Star Wars.
I still think he would work just fine as a minor villain. He isn't a mutant or superpowered, he just uses high-tech equipment, like many other supervillains, so there doesn't need nearly as much time devoted to explaining his existence.
He'd have fire bombs a-plenty, napalm and a fully loaded military-issue flamethrower. It may be tricky to fit both a jetpack and a flamethrower on his back in a "realistic" fashion, but if not, screw it! Invent something new and don't both explaining where it came from beyond being stolen from a "military warehouse" or "WayneTech R & D storage." He doesn't need to be a disgruntled WayneTech employee, either. Wikipedia doesn't say what job he had in the comics, and I'm not up to further reasearch than that right now, but either find something from the source material that even half-way explains his access to such equipment, make something up that makes sense, or yeah, take the easy way out and make him a WayneTech employee. He should definitely have a mask that looks bug-like. I wouldn't trouble myself over mentalic wings and so forth, if he was just a minor villain, but I'd give him a decent-looking fireproof armor suit. While I think it's important to have the Batman exposit his fire-based paraphilia (pyromania) and mention his gift for invention, which establishes him as another fine member of the citizenry of Gotham, I see him as more of an action villain. Even with the hardcore pyromania issues, I don't find him that interesting, or at least as deserving as other villains of a more complex plot. I think the job of arsonist for hire works well because it allows him to make money doing what he does best, which keeps him paid enough to keep his arsenal stocked.

In fact, an action sequence of Firefly setting fire to a building (maybe the Iceberg Lounge, if he's Penguin's minion) and trying to escape, Batman pursuing him, the chase eventually taking to the skies ala On Leather Wings... that would be pretty *****in'.
That would be great. I still think it would work just fine as a "pure action" sequence, or at least as "pure action" as it gets with the Batman, which should always "tainted" with a briefing or debriefing with the Batman expositing profile information that includes real-world psychology whenever possible.

And as for Joker having a purple tuxedo and Two-Face having dual-colored outfits... How can you possibly complain about that?

I can at least understand complaints about people wearing skintight spandex, Which is why I always keep an eye on you...but these are actual clothes that are just a bit more garish than usual (which fits, considering these are supervillains! They don't go around attending high tea, they go around breaking stuff!). I mean, even Schumacher gave Two-Face a two-colored suit. Schumacher. I don't know how someone can even admit to being or wanting to be less faithful to the comics than Schumacher.
That's just like... whoa. I mean, that's like saying that the plot of the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie is too complicated. I never thought I'd see the day where people would say that a Disney movie is too byzantine, too complex, for their minds to follow, but... sheesh. And don't even get me started on the people who complain that the movie has no ending... because it ends on a cliffhanger. That's the whole point, you morons! Did Empire Strikes Back have an ending? NO! Did Back To The Future 2 have an ending? NO! Did the Two Towers have an ending? NO! You had to see the third movie to get the whole story! That's the main idea of the trilogy! Now, you want to talk about no endings, let's talk about Harry Potter! Six books so far, each one of them ends with "we've won a minor victory/suffered a minor defeat, but Voldemort is still out there." SIX BOOKS, NO ENDING! Let's see some shame on that one. Harry Potter, the hero who wins because his mommy loves him.
I suppose after two and a half hours of high-budget action, the new 'Pirates of the Carribean' can end on a cliffhanger, but only if the next one comes out no more than a year later. I heard tell that they filmed this one and the next one back to back (it was in response to me ranting when I heard that Keith Richards wasn't in this one but the next one, which set me off about how they couldn't afford to wait, since the man could keel over or crumble to dust any day now!!), so I damn well do expect them to leave it hanging for no more than a year. That would just be disrespectful.

If the Harry Potter movies end on a cliffhanger, it's because the books do, so that's an issue with the books, and they should not be changing the movies that much. Hell, I don't even cotton to major changes to a decades-long comics franchise adaptation, much less movies made for individual novels (no matter how freakishly long). So yeah, that's my defense of Harry Potter cliffhangers, but 'Pirates of the Carribean' doesn't have that security, if we're talking about more than a year's wait. It's all about the source material; does the Disney World/Land ride end on a cliffhanger? Seriously, I've never been on it... does it??

...

This is still a Batman thread, right?

It damn well better be!

Okay then.

Poison Ivy, I don't really care, as long as she's wearing something made of plants and scanty. That's pretty much been the only criteria of her costume for decades now and if you can't get that right, why are you even bothering?
Step 1. Cast a hot actress.
Step 2. Make her look hot.
THAT'S. ABOUT. IT.
Agreed. About the appearance, anyway.

As for her part in a movie made by me, if any, I'll admit that I'd be pretty careful which "killer plant" effects I'd use. Whether it's subconsciously related to "realism" or not, the reason is because her effects are often either not interesting or embarrasingly bad. Yes, I think the "sentient vines" could work well, if the filmmakers really want it to. Even a giant mutant Venus Flytrap. I guess I just would demand that if I was going to use Poison Ivy and her classic tricks, I'd want those tricks to actually look scary. Let's face facts, if someone could create and control creatures like that, it would be pretty feckin' scary. If you can't imagine it being that way, then you aren't trying hard enough. Yes, it would take a lot of effort and competence to do it right, but if any given director/producer/whatever isn't up for it, then they should just admit that instead of claiming any "realism" bull*****. There's nothing wrong with overlooking a character like Poison Ivy for the sake of convenience or lack of confidence in one's ability to capitalize on the available budget in relation to the challenge at hand, as long as the person doing this has the balls to admit it's not about "realism" or even suspension of disbelief. What belief are we supposed to suspend? Only if it was a period piece that took place well before 2001, there's no God damn way a character like the Batman could exist and not get caught, so let's not dwell on what can or cannot "work" in terms of sci-fi/fantasy elements.
Poison Ivy's big plan could be engineering or altering existing plants to produce something much more toxic to humans than oxygen or CO2 (but harmless to plants, of course) after absorbing CO2. Her ability to manipulate people through the use of pheromones, expertise with poison and immunity to most toxins makes her a pretty formidable villain, too. Hell, using any female character who coldly and confidently manipulates men adds to the noir elements, regardless of whatever sci-fi elements are present, so in a way, she's another prime example of a Batman villain. I'd still feel compelled to have her to use some form of "sentient" or more powerful plant constructs, and at the very, very least, she should have plants at one of her lairs that can hold a human captive when placed near its tendrils. There's also the possibility of her beginning to create a small army of plant-human hybrid clones, which could easily be done well. They don't need to be giant cactus people like in the BTAS episode where she supposedly went straight and settled down. They don't even need to be able to extend impossibly big vines like in the TNBSA episode where she played match-maker for every rich person in Gotham. They could just be very strong people with a sickly greenish tint to their flesh who can sucrete toxic pheromones and fluids from their skin and maybe extrude nasty thorns, too. See, I wasn't even planning on using her in my franchise, and I've still got all of these ideas that I honestly do find feasible. I think I may have to work her in somewhere. She might even be the "main villain" of a particular movie, given that her grand plan is inevitably bigger in scale than almost every other Batman villain. I'd have to throw in several other villains and subplots in addition, though, because I know I'm not personally as entertained by Poison Ivy as I am by some others. Again, I'd never exclude Ivy solely because she's a sci-fi villain. If anything, I think she's the easiest sci-fi villain to implement in a live action Batman film, now that I've pulled several possibilities other than "poison businessmen and humanitarians and use killer vines and Venus Flytraps." She's got noir, sci-fi and horror going for her something fierce.

The Darwyn Cooke costume for Catwoman seems to have stuck on, so I say go with that. It's a bit more functional than the purple bodypaint Jim Balent "no, she's not naked, because I'm not drawing her nipples" tailed costume. Besides, I'd like to see Herr Logan's head explode like one of those Star Trek robots when he tries to comprehend a costume that is both faithful to the comics and made of leather. "DOES NOT COMPUTE!"
http://www.brokenfrontier.com/img/2005/may/DC/CatwomanCv46.jpghttp://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/Oct05/CatwomanCv48.jpghttp://www.gothampublicworks.com/images/gallery/balancing-cat.jpg

Warning: Drool Alert--
http://www.gothampublicworks.com/images/gallery/ccon03/catwoman4.jpg*

You mean this costume? If so, that's the one I always said I would use.
You probably already know all of this, but I'm gonna rant and exposit anyway (you asked for it, you know you did...):

I'm certainly not opposed to leather if a character has worn it in the comics, and if that suit in the comics was inspired by a good movie costume instead of a lazy, bland one. See, there's absolutely nothing about the Movie!X-Men costumes that speaks for the characters, specifically. Moreover, ever since the original team got individual costumes back in the 60's, they've always had individual costumes in every other incarnation (except for the little while when they tried all wearing the old school colors, which they didn't like), so when a team of colorful superheroes is brought to a live action movie franchise and they're all wearing not only something blatantly uncreative, but all wearing the same thing, it's not at all innovative or faithful. At least when Catwoman in 'Batman Returns' got a revamp, it actually suited the character (not the white stitches, but the black latex suit and corset), and not everyone else was wearing it. Sure, Movie!Batman was always in black rubber since Burton's first movie (thanks a lot, Tim), but his was armor, and Catwoman's wasn't. It was purely for cosmetic reasons, and it didn't seem out of character, for either the movie version or the comics version.
I consider this Catwoman costume an actual improvement over the purple suit. I especially hate the look where her hair is flowing out the back of her cowl. Yes, I'd grudgingly accept a purple suit, and even a tail, because I don't like to be a hypocrite, but I honestly believe the leather/nylon black suit and goggles are not only fitting for the Post-Crisis version of the character, but visually more pleasing. Again, there's a lot of subjectivity in there, but my position is, that's my Movie!Catwoman costume.

My pick for actress is Angelina Jolie. No, I'm not roaming with the herd on this one, I honestly think she's got the perfect look (I'd have her hair died black), and I saw some photomanip of her in the costume, courtesy of DorkyFresh, I believe. Puurrrfect! :cool:



:wolverine


* An unnecessary note about Catwoman as portrayed by the the unmanipped live model in the Catwoman costume from Gotham Public Works:
I swear to God, in every human and animal language, I don't care how much of a schizoid personality I was trying to maintain for my grim, holy mission of justice, if I was the Batman and I had that unspeakably hot, voluptuous, leather-wrapped piece of woman waving her tail at me on the rooftops of Gotham for years and years, I would not be able to maintain my "professional distance." Seriously, my guard would be sooo dropped if those were my circumstances (and if I wasn't spoken for, of course). Seriously, I'd make a special entry in Batcomputer files stating that I've officially moved the standard of "hands-the-hell-off" down to "unprovoked violent offenses on innocent civilians" when it comes to female antiheroes. You want to steal priceless items from museums? Hey, they're still just things, right? It's people that matter. Living, warm-blooded, curvy, bursting-out-of-their-catsuit people... that's what's important in life. Mee-frickin'--yoww!

That doesn't count if there's an active distress call at the moment, of course. That weak-willed ***** is for TheatricalReleaseMovie!Daredevil. But just barely...

[Zev]

* An unnecessary note about Catwoman as portrayed by the the unmanipped live model in the Catwoman costume from Gotham Public Works:
I swear to God, in every human and animal language, I don't care how much of a schizoid personality I was trying to maintain for my grim, holy mission of justice, if I was the Batman and I had that unspeakably hot, voluptuous, leather-wrapped piece of woman waving her tail at me on the rooftops of Gotham for years and years, I would not be able to maintain my "professional distance." Seriously, my guard would be sooo dropped if those were my circumstances (and if I wasn't spoken for, of course). Seriously, I'd make a special entry in Batcomputer files stating that I've officially moved the standard of "hands-the-hell-off" down to "unprovoked violent offenses on innocent civilians" when it comes to female antiheroes. You want to steal priceless items from museums? Hey, they're still just things, right? It's people that matter. Living, warm-blooded, curvy, bursting-out-of-their-catsuit people... that's what's important in life. Mee-frickin'--yoww!

That doesn't count if there's an active distress call at the moment, of course. That weak-willed ***** is for TheatricalReleaseMovie!Daredevil. But just barely...

I think it's safe to say that if any superhero were an actual red-blooded American male, they would get lucky with a lot more alacrity than they actually do. With the exception of the Flash back when Mike Baron was writing him, when he was a complete slut. Mobsters were actually planning to have him star in "blue movies."

But no, instead it's "I'm sorry, Maxima, I can't have meaningless rough sex with you for the purpose of procreation because it just wouldn't be right." I think the one exception to this was in Spider-Man, where Black Cat revealed that she loved Spider-Man and hated Peter Parker and our boy's reaction was pretty much "Can we keep having sex? Yes? Rock on." Of course, it didn't last, but still...

By minor action villain, I'm talking about Firefly at least being part of the ensemble of villains. I don't want him to show up with no explanation starting a fire and for Batman to beat him up as a sort of "day in the life" montage. Opening action sequence to get the audience's blood racing, that's acceptable. But dude deserves more than just a cameo.

[Herr Logan]

I think it's safe to say that if any superhero were an actual red-blooded American male, they would get lucky with a lot more alacrity than they actually do. With the exception of the Flash back when Mike Baron was writing him, when he was a complete slut. Mobsters were actually planning to have him star in "blue movies."

But no, instead it's "I'm sorry, Maxima, I can't have meaningless rough sex with you for the purpose of procreation because it just wouldn't be right." I think the one exception to this was in Spider-Man, where Black Cat revealed that she loved Spider-Man and hated Peter Parker and our boy's reaction was pretty much "Can we keep having sex? Yes? Rock on." Of course, it didn't last, but still...

I'm not trying to knock the superhero genre for its higher standards and boundaries, of course. Just saying that I would be weak and probably unworthy of the Bat-mantle if I was alone with someone who liked like that, in an outfit like that and she was ready to go. I guess it's fitting that the Batman finally gave in during a story illustrated by Jim Lee, who's known for his depiction of pretty wimmens. That's the story that totally sold me on that costume forevermore, and the Gotham Public Works website is what sold me on using it for a movie franchise. Thanks again to those fine people for making our nights a little warmer and our imaginations a little dirtier.

By minor action villain, I'm talking about Firefly at least being part of the ensemble of villains. I don't want him to show up with no explanation starting a fire and for Batman to beat him up as a sort of "day in the life" montage. Opening action sequence to get the audience's blood racing, that's acceptable. But dude deserves more than just a cameo.

I think I could work it so Firefly got his due. He just wouldn't get the same story/character development as some others (Scarface, Riddler, etc.). I think he could be done very creepily if we get a shot of him watching his handiwork. He supposedly sees "visions" in the flames. Playing up that angle a bit but still leaving him "normal" enough to get himself hired would probably be how I'd do it.

:wolverine

[Cullen]

I don't see Jolie as Catwoman. She'd be good, don't get me wrong, but I don't see her and think Catwoman.

Who would I pick? Damned if I know. I like Linda Cardellini, but that was based on her work in Scooby Doo. One flippin' film. Not enough to make an honset judgement.

[Boom]

It's funny really. I've been here since summer of 2003. I was here since Batman: The Intimidation Game was in Pre-Production. During that time, speculation was flying with regards to the new film. A few months ago I went back and read some very old threads from 2003 and 2004, and I couldn't help but notice something.

Practically everybody wanted a more faithful adaptation of the batsuit. At least, they wanted a gray and black suit (the underwear was still a bit controversial back then) made of a new material. As far as I can recall, there was only one member I saw that wanted to keep the black rubber look. With the success of Spider-Man, pretty much everybody was convinced that a traditional batsuit could work. And concepts were flying left and right on how to achieve it. With the exception of that one member, NOBODY wanted to go the same route as the Burton/Schumacher films.

Now fast forward to today. The classic suit, which at the time of pre-production was desired by pretty much everybody, is now considered "too ridiculous" and "too unrealistic" to "fit in Nolan's world."

What the hell happened?

It truly boggles my mind how someone can flat-out say the comic book suit CAN NOT WORK. It really does. We are talking about a Hollywood studio that puts MILLIONS of dollars into these projects. We're talking about a Hollywood studio that hires on the best in the field of concept art and design. And you can still sit there and tell me that you truly believe the batsuit can not work? SPARE ME.

This is why I was wary of Nolan's "realistic" approach, because I was afraid something like this would happen. Batfans everywhere were desperate for a new Batman film that would make up for the franchise's downfaill. When Nolan came along with his vision, it sounded too good to be true. But now, people are STUCK on that concept. Because it saved the series, people begin to feel that the realistic approach to the character is the ONLY way to do it. And consequently, the classic suit gets brushed under the bed, and considered "unrealistic."

[The Batman]

i agree. the fans on the bat boards have no imagination. they feel the same exact formula for bb will make the sequel better somehow

[Boom]

The Batman Begins batsuit has so many flaws, yet it has the most adamant and persistent defenders.

The cape clasps are an eye sore, the cowl is horrible, the suit buckles and creases, and the cape is "off-color" to the rest of the suit.

The sequel's suit is going to need some serious improvements, but aesthetically and mechanically.

[Herr Logan]

Go to this thread now: it's Crisis on Infinite Safe Havens! (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9568845#post9568845)

Best of luck to you all, and thanks for all your contributions and support. :cool:

:wolverine



P.S.:
Boom, The Batman, Cullen: sorry I can't respond to your posts right now, as I'm running short on time, but I thank you for posting. :up:

Well, except Cullen. He's a troublemaker. :o

Cullen, good luck in your ventures in novel-writing. I'm pullin' for ya. :up:

[Cullen]

Go to this thread now: it's Crisis on Infinite Safe Havens! (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9568845#post9568845)

Best of luck to you all, and thanks for all your contributions and support. :cool:

:wolverine



P.S.:
Boom, The Batman, Cullen: sorry I can't respond to your posts right now, as I'm running short on time, but I thank you for posting. :up:

Well, except Cullen. He's a troublemaker. :o

Cullen, good luck in your ventures in novel-writing. I'm pullin' for ya. :up:If you thought I was bad before....:mad::)

[Beelze]

What is the criteria for something being true to the comics? I was thinking this because Batman has gone through so many changes, and not just visually, over the many years. You have everything the original Kane Batman to the modern Batman, from the Batman who would kill occasionally, to the non-killing Batman. Hell, you even have the campy 60's Batman. Are we just picking the stuff we'd like to see from the plethora of Bat mythos available, or is there some strict code to it all? If anything, the most faithful would stick to the absolute original, but Batman has been reinvented so many times by others (and has been made better, IMO), yet we allow no re-invention to come from ourselves? Are comics the only medium allowed to change the definition of a character, and who's to say the definition of a character has changed? When can something be considered canon enough for us to use it in a movie and then call the movie faithful?

Myself, I'm more interested in the essence of the characters and the general idea of the visuals rather than having everything the way it was in [insert random Neal Adams story], but I'm still interesed in what you all have to say about the issue of "faithfullness".

[The Batman]

The Batman Begins batsuit has so many flaws, yet it has the most adamant and persistent defenders.

The cape clasps are an eye sore, the cowl is horrible, the suit buckles and creases, and the cape is "off-color" to the rest of the suit.

The sequel's suit is going to need some serious improvements, but aesthetically and mechanically.

I feel like strangling somebody everytime i see a "leave it the way it is" post...it clearly has flaws, for gods sake.

And i must say, it was great that you brought up the fact that everyone wanted a spider-man type suit before we got to see the BB one.

[The Batman]

What is the criteria for something being true to the comics? I was thinking this because Batman has gone through so many changes, and not just visually, over the many years. You have everything the original Kane Batman to the modern Batman, from the Batman who would kill occasionally, to the non-killing Batman. Hell, you even have the campy 60's Batman. Are we just picking the stuff we'd like to see from the plethora of Bat mythos available, or is there some strict code to it all? If anything, the most faithful would stick to the absolute original, but Batman has been reinvented so many times by others (and has been made better, IMO), yet we allow no re-invention to come from ourselves? Are comics the only medium allowed to change the definition of a character, and who's to say the definition of a character has changed? When can something be considered canon enough for us to use it in a movie and then call the movie faithful?

Myself, I'm more interested in the essence of the characters and the general idea of the visuals rather than having everything the way it was in [insert random Neal Adams story], but I'm still interesed in what you all have to say about the issue of "faithfullness".


Even with all these different versions of a character, the versions still have the basic principles that the character has relied on.

Herr can give a better answer than this, but if the changes by the media actually fit the character and what they're about, than sure, its faithful. the problem is, most of the time changes dont help the character, and are just made to feed creative egos.

I wouldnt say comics are allowed to change the definition of the character either. For example, Marvel Comics has recently changed spider-man's definition, and it sucks. That wasnt done by cartoons or movies, but by marvel itself. The key, IMO, is to stay faithful to the ideas of the character, and only use the source material of people who take the original ideas and make them better.

[Zev]

I'm Taking Over (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9616735#post9616735)

[Herr Logan]

Look again and read carefully. (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243174)

:wolverine

[Zaphod]

Just to reiterate my idea for a Movie!Riddler portrayal:

I would have The Riddler wear a green suit and bowler hat, and while I would indeed go with the question marks all over the green of his general dress, I would abort the purple eye mask for purple tinted lenses, simply because it fits in far better with how I would portray The Riddler in my movies.

You see, The Riddler to me is extremely arrogant, and rather than shieding his persona from the public (which an eye mask, as opposed to lenses, would suggest) he wants to advertise his actions. This may sound like The Joker, but the key difference is that while both characters are flamboyant to a degree, the Joker being a freakin' loon, the Riddler advetisises himself much differently. It would Nygma's Riddles, not his general persona, that he wants Gotham and the authroties to take heed of. Initially, I would have The Riddler as a right hand man to a mob boss in a movie where he first appears; the crime lord in question is using the Riddler as a means of sending authorites chasing down blind alleys, aswell as the Batman, which would infact make more sense since by now the Batman has proved himself a threat to anyone in the crime game, and the Riddler would be much sort after as a means of diverting away the Bat's attention.

In fact, I quite like the idea of the underworld vying for control of Nygma's services, with The Riddler more intellgent than the lot of them and with ability to have them all succumb to him through one big Riddle if he so wished. Another aspect to the Riddlers character I would introduce is to make him into a 'human lie-detector' he would be well versed in 'the riddles of the human body' as he would call them. Whenever an interrogation wasn't turning up answers, the Riddler would simply be called in by his boss to read the pup who isn't squealing!

The Riddler needs to be one seriously dark, nasty, creepy, but yet flamboyant character. I really feel he has potential for a Bat-Movie, even on par with the likes of Joker and Two Face (the latter of who I woul like to be in a movie with the Riddler, although not as partners like in 'Forever' of course). I would of course include scenes of Riddler being at the scene of one of his crime in process, since he is an arrogant bastard who seldom fears seriously being caught due to his seering intelligence and use of riddles.

Thoughts? Sorry if that was all slightly out of order, I'm scatterbrained at the moment and it's late.

[kame-sennin]

It's funny really. I've been here since summer of 2003. I was here since Batman: The Intimidation Game was in Pre-Production. During that time, speculation was flying with regards to the new film. A few months ago I went back and read some very old threads from 2003 and 2004, and I couldn't help but notice something.

Practically everybody wanted a more faithful adaptation of the batsuit. At least, they wanted a gray and black suit (the underwear was still a bit controversial back then) made of a new material. As far as I can recall, there was only one member I saw that wanted to keep the black rubber look. With the success of Spider-Man, pretty much everybody was convinced that a traditional batsuit could work. And concepts were flying left and right on how to achieve it. With the exception of that one member, NOBODY wanted to go the same route as the Burton/Schumacher films.

Now fast forward to today. The classic suit, which at the time of pre-production was desired by pretty much everybody, is now considered "too ridiculous" and "too unrealistic" to "fit in Nolan's world."

What the hell happened?

It truly boggles my mind how someone can flat-out say the comic book suit CAN NOT WORK. It really does. We are talking about a Hollywood studio that puts MILLIONS of dollars into these projects. We're talking about a Hollywood studio that hires on the best in the field of concept art and design. And you can still sit there and tell me that you truly believe the batsuit can not work? SPARE ME.

This is why I was wary of Nolan's "realistic" approach, because I was afraid something like this would happen. Batfans everywhere were desperate for a new Batman film that would make up for the franchise's downfaill. When Nolan came along with his vision, it sounded too good to be true. But now, people are STUCK on that concept. Because it saved the series, people begin to feel that the realistic approach to the character is the ONLY way to do it. And consequently, the classic suit gets brushed under the bed, and considered "unrealistic."

You nailed it. This is basically the stream of consiousness that bursts through my head everytime I see a "leave the costume the way it is" thread. Well done.

[Zev]

Say Herr, now that Nightwing is all finished, what'd you think of it? How'd it score so far as faithfulness to the comics goes?

[kame-sennin]

It's finally come, I finally have the evidence that I've always dreamed of. I now have proof -from the only people who could be considered experts on the subject- that the grey color scheme for Batman's costume is in fact "realistic". More importantly, as it turns out the color black may actually be a hinderance for urban camoflage.

Read it and weep Nolan fanboys:

[T]he ACU is a universal pattern capable of blending into desert, urban, and woodland environments. Second, the color black has been eliminated from the Army camouflage—the Army decided that it is disruptive in a camouflage scheme because it is not found in nature... the places where the black in a camo pattern is most disruptive, it turns out, are urban and desert settings...

http://www.slate.com/id/2106359/

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/3240/ex01newacuel1.jpg

ACU stands for Army Combat Uniform, btw.

My god, it feels so good.

EDIT: I'm debating whether or not to post this in the Begins sequel boards, but I don't want to cause a flame war. Obviously, I'd re-word the post. Thoughts?

[Zev]

It's finally come, I finally have the evidence that I've always dreamed of. I now have proof -from the only people who could be considered experts on the subject- that the grey color scheme for Batman's costume is in fact "realistic". More importantly, as it turns out the color black may actually be a hinderance for urban camoflage.

Read it and weep Nolan fanboys:

[T]he ACU is a universal pattern capable of blending into desert, urban, and woodland environments. Second, the color black has been eliminated from the Army camouflage—the Army decided that it is disruptive in a camouflage scheme because it is not found in nature... the places where the black in a camo pattern is most disruptive, it turns out, are urban and desert settings...

http://www.slate.com/id/2106359/

ACU stands for Army Combat Uniform, btw.

My god, it feels so good.

EDIT: I'm debating whether or not to post this in the Begins sequel boards, but I don't want to cause a flame war. Obviously, I'd re-word the post. Thoughts?

Realistic or not, this:

http://superherohype.com/gallery/Batman/The_Movie/Movie_Stills/batmanbegins23.jpg

Looks cooler than this:

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/3240/ex01newacuel1.jpg

[kame-sennin]

Realistic or not, this:

http://superherohype.com/gallery/Batman/The_Movie/Movie_Stills/batmanbegins23.jpg

Looks cooler than this:

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/3240/ex01newacuel1.jpg
That's because the second dude is a dork who can't work his velcro shirt. But a faithful Batman costume would look a lot better than the craptastic begins costume. Posting one of the few images where the Begins suit looks good does not disprove that.

[Zev]

But, just to be clear, you want the Batman suit to use urban camoflage and thus look something like this.

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8205/untitled1hw7.jpg

Hmmm... doesn't strike me as very intimidating.

[Herr Logan]

You nailed it. This is basically the stream of consiousness that bursts through my head everytime I see a "leave the costume the way it is" thread. Well done.

Yes, Boom indeed nailed it. Sorry I didn't respond to it earlier and am not up to supplying my own rant in return. :up:

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

Say Herr, now that Nightwing is all finished, what'd you think of it? How'd it score so far as faithfulness to the comics goes?

I haven't had a chance to read it yet. It may be a little while before I can.

I wouldn't be the best judge of how faithful it would be, considering I'm not very knowledgable about Nightwing's history. I'd have it run by someone who is, and they're welcome to give their critiquebefore I finish reading it as well.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

It's finally come, I finally have the evidence that I've always dreamed of. I now have proof -from the only people who could be considered experts on the subject- that the grey color scheme for Batman's costume is in fact "realistic". More importantly, as it turns out the color black may actually be a hinderance for urban camoflage.

Read it and weep Nolan fanboys:

[T]he ACU is a universal pattern capable of blending into desert, urban, and woodland environments. Second, the color black has been eliminated from the Army camouflage—the Army decided that it is disruptive in a camouflage scheme because it is not found in nature... the places where the black in a camo pattern is most disruptive, it turns out, are urban and desert settings...

http://www.slate.com/id/2106359/

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/3240/ex01newacuel1.jpg

ACU stands for Army Combat Uniform, btw.

My god, it feels so good.

EDIT: I'm debating whether or not to post this in the Begins sequel boards, but I don't want to cause a flame war. Obviously, I'd re-word the post. Thoughts?

Yeah that's right!! :up:

I think I'd heard the same about the color black. The point may be moot either way, considering the Batman still drapes his body in black, but I believe he should have a comparable portion of gray to the black, since, despite what anybody says, the Batman requires the ability to be seen as much as not being seen. Anything the anti-source material sheep say on the subject is worthless, especially those who defend every aspect of 'Batman Begins' and yet ignore the part where they stress theatricality. These fools act like the Batman wants to be invisible all the time. He does not. He needs to be able to choose invisibility and invisibility at will, so gray and black is better than all black.

Great find, man. Thanks for posting it. :up:

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

But, just to be clear, you want the Batman suit to use urban camoflage and thus look something like this.

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8205/untitled1hw7.jpg

Hmmm... doesn't strike me as very intimidating.

His point is that Urban Camo Guy doesn't have any black in his uniform.

I know my suspicion that you're defending the 'Begins' costume with sarcasm without supplying the required additional criticisms of the suit or movie in general must be paranoia, because you'd never do something so clearly prohibited after all this time, right?

:wolverine

[kame-sennin]

Yeah that's right!! :up:

I think I'd heard the same about the color black. The point may be moot either way, considering the Batman still drapes his body in black, but I believe he should have a comparable portion of gray to the black, since, despite what anybody says, the Batman requires the ability to be seen as much as not being seen. Anything the anti-source material sheep say on the subject is worthless, especially those who defend every aspect of 'Batman Begins' and yet ignore the part where they stress theatricality. These fools act like the Batman wants to be invisible all the time. He does not. He needs to be able to choose invisibility and invisibility at will, so gray and black is better than all black.

Great find, man. Thanks for posting it. :up:

:wolverine

Exactly, the whole point is moot. Begins suit is not a total stealth suit, and therefore their stupid, weak-ass reasoning is finally gone. Of course the gray costume isn't that stealthy, but as you say, it doesn't have to be.

[kame-sennin]

His point is that Urban Camo Guy doesn't have any black in his uniform.

:wolverine

Thanks for clarifying.

[kame-sennin]

But, just to be clear, you want the Batman suit to use urban camoflage and thus look something like this.

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8205/untitled1hw7.jpg

Hmmm... doesn't strike me as very intimidating.

Actually, if Nolan fans were willing to put their money where their mouth is, that's actually the look that Batman would have. However, they wouldn't want that because they are simply weakminded seudo fans who are ashamed that they admire a character that originated in comics and wears tights, therefore, the only way to justify their feelings is to support an unfaithful bastardization under the premise of "realism".

[Zev]

His point is that Urban Camo Guy doesn't have any black in his uniform.

I know my suspicion that you're defending the 'Begins' costume with sarcasm without supplying the required additional criticisms of the suit or movie in general must be paranoia, because you'd never do something so clearly prohibited after all this time, right?

:wolverine

No, I'm defending the color black. It's a good power, gets associated with evil an awful lot, but overall I think it's unfairly maligned for being overhyped. People get told that black is beautiful and black is slimming, when black doesn't meet their expectations they throw it by the curbside.

The point is, that urban camoflage is meant for day operations. On night ops, soldiers use... well, black. Given that Batman only operates at night, I figure he'd wear black.

[kame-sennin]

The point is, that urban camoflage is meant for day operations. On night ops, soldiers use... well, black. Given that Batman only operates at night, I figure he'd wear black.

Nope:

Two things distinguish the Army's ACU camouflage scheme from the Marines' MARPAT. First, the Marines employ multiple camouflage schemes for different environments, but the ACU is a universal pattern...

You have to read through the whole article, but it basically states that this will be the army's only combat uniform.

[Herr Logan]

No, I'm defending the color black. It's a good power, gets associated with evil an awful lot, but overall I think it's unfairly maligned for being overhyped. People get told that black is beautiful and black is slimming, when black doesn't meet their expectations they throw it by the curbside.

The point is, that urban camoflage is meant for day operations. On night ops, soldiers use... well, black. Given that Batman only operates at night, I figure he'd wear black.

Given that Batman has always worn a gray bodysuit in the comics, I figured he'd wear a gray bodysuit in a faithful movie.

There's no need to defend black. His cape and cowl were black in the very first comics and are generally depicted as such in the comics of the last several years (although not by the colorist in 'Hush,' for reasons I cannot fathom... I'm not in favor of that choice, personally). Since I doubt most real fans of the comics are demanding a blue cape and cowl, I figure he'd be wearing a good deal of black in a movie no matter what.

There is no argument here. None. Gray is what the Batman has always worn. It can be very dark without being black, and I would actually prefer it be dark. There doesn't even need to be an example taken from the real-life military. There doesn't even need to be a comparison drawn between the color gray and the visual and philisophical film noir themes inherent in the Batman mythos that Kame-Sennin graciously posted in another thread recently. The Batman wears gray, and he's never tried to be completely invisible (even if wearing all black made you more invisible than dark gray, which it doesn't), and it is known by every true fan of the comics that in the world of the Batman, stealth has almost nothing to do with coloring, and everything to do with skill.

Find a major criticism of the 'Batman Begins' costume to discuss that hasn't been brought up an excessive number of times (of which there isn't an example that isn't easy to find and link), or move on. If you don't want to see the real Batman costume in a Batman movie, go tell someone else about it and let this place be the Safe Haven it professes to be. Click on Kame-Sennin's list of recent posts and you can find places to defend the mediocre and unfaithful status quo where it's permitted to do so.

Next issue!

:wolverine

[Zev]

Given that Batman has always worn a gray bodysuit in the comics, I figured he'd wear a gray bodysuit in a faithful movie.

There's no need to defend black. His cape and cowl were black in the very first comics and are generally depicted as such in the comics of the last several years (although not by the colorist in 'Hush,' for reasons I cannot fathom... I'm not in favor of that choice, personally). Since I doubt most real fans of the comics are demanding a blue cape and cowl, I figure he'd be wearing a good deal of black in a movie no matter what.

There is no argument here. None. Gray is what the Batman has always worn.

Except for after Prodigy, you mean?

[Beelze]

That article about black not working well as camouflage in urban environments was interesting, and surprising. I wish they would've mentioned something about night operations, but it seems they won't have any black at all. Still, they didn't have a bright yellow oval on the suit, so that's good.

Herr can give a better answer than this, but if the changes by the media actually fit the character and what they're about, than sure, its faithful. the problem is, most of the time changes dont help the character, and are just made to feed creative egos.
Alright, then I hope to hear his answer as well.

[JLBats]

I thought we wanted the costume to be faithful to the comics?

That urban camo on Batman would look completely different from basically anything Batman has ever looked like.

I maintain that the real problem with the Begins costume was not colour or material. That was basically fine. However, the suit had that pattern on the front that was completely wrong. It should have been more flattened and look more form-fitting, like a wet suit.

Storywise, I maintain that, while it was easily the best part of the movie, the first act was unfocused and too flashback oriented. I would have kept the flashbacks, but condensed them to appearing mostly in that first twenty minutes. The end of act one should have been the famous scene from Year One, which sort of functions as the end of act one in that Graphic Novel anyway. The first half of act two should have focused on Batman fighting crime and running more and more into Falcone. The third act is too garbled to even get into right now.

[kame-sennin]

I thought we wanted the costume to be faithful to the comics?

That urban camo on Batman would look completely different from basically anything Batman has ever looked like.

My only point was that black is not superior to gray in terms of effective camolfage. That's all. I don't care about Batman being camoflaged at all, I just wanted to disprove the point that is often made by Begins fans, that black is better for stealth. Acording to the U.S. army, it is not. I understan your confusion, especially considering the manip above, but that is simply a bit of humor on Zev's part.

[Herr Logan]

I thought we wanted the costume to be faithful to the comics?

That urban camo on Batman would look completely different from basically anything Batman has ever looked like.

I maintain that the real problem with the Begins costume was not colour or material. That was basically fine. However, the suit had that pattern on the front that was completely wrong. It should have been more flattened and look more form-fitting, like a wet suit.

Storywise, I maintain that, while it was easily the best part of the movie, the first act was unfocused and too flashback oriented. I would have kept the flashbacks, but condensed them to appearing mostly in that first twenty minutes. The end of act one should have been the famous scene from Year One, which sort of functions as the end of act one in that Graphic Novel anyway. The first half of act two should have focused on Batman fighting crime and running more and more into Falcone. The third act is too garbled to even get into right now.

Kame-Sennin is not suggesting that the Batman wear urban camo. If the Batman doesn't go out during the day, then he shouldn't have white in his uniform. More to the point, the Batman isn't trying to dress like a military person. He also isn't suggesting (I presume) that the Batman wear that shade of gray. He's just saying that as a conceptual choice for urban camoflage, gray suits better than black. It's moot either way, of course, since it's far more important that a legendary and globally recognized visual icon look correct than match the daily-changing policies of what is or is not used by an organization as badly organized as the U.S. military.

People should keep in mind that a soldier never dresses in camouflage, urban or otherwise, with the belief that he's going to actually blend into his surroundings to the point that he can't be seen by an observer. Never. It's merely a slight edge. They have to wear something, so their uniforms are designed in such a way that the colors divert just enough attention to buy them only a few seconds of reaction time.
The Batman also doesn't expect to blend into his surrounding by virtue of his costume alone. Stealth as a ninja skill is about patience and a agility, just like Movie!R'as said. The Batman can practically turn off his breathing and heartbeat for minutes at a time if he needs to, and can stand like a statue for hours (which really, really helps if you're in shadow) and run quickly without making noise. That's why he's stealthy, not because he's well-camouflaged.


I agree with pretty much all the rest of what you said, even the coloring/material thing. Welcome to the Haven, JLBats, and thank you for posting. :up:



Yes, the thing about the 'Begins' costume material is that it's mostly the same as the Movie!Spidey costumes; it's neoprene, which can easily look like the form-fitting bodysuit the Batman has always worn in the comics, just as it was perfect for the base bodysuit for Movie!Spidey.

There's absolutely no need for a bulky, segmented-looking suit for the Batman. A stretchable, flexible, fire- and tear-resistant material is just fine, with a lightweight, flexible bullet-proof vest underneath that would be represented by some subtle muscle-padding that would make him look just slightly bulkier than a guy in a wetsuit, without being "puffy" or whatever he was. There don't need to be any fancy lines that show off just how expensive the whole thing is, and it should never, ever look like it came in one piece and that there's only one of them to begin with. It's supposed to be a suit he had specifically made for his purposes, with a huge stockpile of extras, not a once-in-a-lifetime lucky find all put together in a drawer in the basement of WayneTech.

The coloring of the finished, in-action product of the Batman Begins suit essentially looks black and gray, but they showed him spray-painting the suit with black stealth paint. There's no need for that at all. What they need is a shade of gray that's about that dark for the bodysuit, a cowl that's as black as the cape and isn't as ugly and bulky as in 'Begins,' a scalloped cape that doesn't hang below the feet and has slightly more weight to it (there's no need for an electrically-triggered glider in the very beginning, either, since the Batman in the comics got by just fine without that for a long time), black Kevlar climbing gloves that have the scalloped bracers built right in, and a pair of sleek trunks as black as the cape and gloves that acts as a lightweight Kevlar rappelling harness that attaches to the utility belt with secure keepers, just like cop's utility belt attaches to his trouser belt. A belt alone for attaching a grapnel to is completely unrealistic for rappelling or swinging safely, and the Batman has almost always worn black trunks over his tights in the comics. Thus, using black trunks over a dark gray bodysuit that act as further protection for all the important stuff in that region of the body (arteries, hip bones, the Wayne family jewels) and a real rapelling harness will make the costume look completely faithful to the comics and make it actually more realistic, instead of the false "realism" these filmmakers keep fooling weak-minded sheep into accepting and defending with. Yes, the trunks/harness would actually be an improvement over the comics, as every single piece of the costume in the comics has a practical application at this poiint except for those trunks. It's the perfect way to honor the classic look and suggest a non-cosmetic change that progresses the theme of cleverness, preparedness and practicality in the Batman mythos.

People seem to think the Batman needs a helmet for a cowl, because he's taking on gun-toting criminals. Well, that's never been how it is in the comics, and his ratio of being shot to being shot at is extremely low, so there's no need for it. The Batman is fast, agile, and generally skilled enough to avoid needing such protection. The mask should be shaped like the Burton cowls from the jaw and base of the skull upwards, but does not need a thick neck that impedes movement, and the Nolan cowl is the clumsiest and ugliest (and not ugly in a good way) one of all. It only seems like it isn't because the entire piece isn't as bolted down to the rest of the suit, but the entire thing should be flexible, tight neoprene, with a rubber piece inserted into the face and scalp (in reality, not in the story, necessarily) to maintain the proper shape of the ears and face contours.
The mask's purposes are these: to conceal his face from observers, to project the image of the bat, and to contain his sensory equipment (nightvision/thermal lenses, wireless communications array, directional microphones/antennae). It doesn't need to be a helmet. Just saying that there are optional trauma plates in it that function the same as a boxer's headgear is enough. The Batman has preternatural skill, whether people want to accept that he's an impossibly capable character or not, so he doesn't need the kind of protection a real man would need. That's why he's the Batman, and not Realistic Urban Vigilante Man. True fans don't need to see the Batman watered down with false "realism" to enjoy it, and only cowards need that security blanket to be able to watch such a movie with their non-fan friends.

:wolverine

[JLBats]

People seem to think the Batman needs a helmet for a cowl, because he's taking on gun-toting criminals. Well, that's never been how it is in the comics, and his ratio of being shot to being shot at is extremely low, so there's no need for it. The Batman is fast, agile, and generally skilled enough to avoid needing such protection.


Some of my favourite stuff in BTAS was Batman's agility. In Robin's Reckoning, he dodges all that machine gun fire and fades into the darkness. It's the kind of thing I'm starting to worry we will never see in a live action movie.


The mask should be shaped like the Burton cowls from the jaw and base of the skull upwards, but does not need a thick neck that impedes movement, and the Nolan cowl is the clumsiest and ugliest (and not ugly in a good way) one of all. It only seems like it isn't because the entire piece isn't as bolted down to the rest of the suit, but the entire thing should be flexible, tight neoprene, with a rubber piece inserted into the face and scalp (in reality, not in the story, necessarily) to maintain the proper shape of the ears and face contours.
The mask's purposes are these: to conceal his face from observers, to project the image of the bat, and to contain his sensory equipment (nightvision/thermal lenses, wireless communications array, directional microphones/antennae). It doesn't need to be a helmet. Just saying that there are optional trauma plates in it that function the same as a boxer's headgear is enough. The Batman has preternatural skill, whether people want to accept that he's an impossibly capable character or not, so he doesn't need the kind of protection a real man would need. That's why he's the Batman, and not Realistic Urban Vigilante Man. True fans don't need to see the Batman watered down with false "realism" to enjoy it, and only cowards need that security blanket to be able to watch such a movie with their non-fan friends.

:wolverine

I think that when Nolan says realism, he means realism within the world and not with Batman, per se. The thing he likes about the character is the way he sort of pops within this world, this dark gritty world and this very preternatural character. It's a very pulpy concept, and one I don't think Nolan has pulled off nearly as well as he pats himself on the back for.

I think there is a necessary amount of realism, but Batman as a character must be completely otherworldly. I like that they showed us how Batman constructed his Batman persona, but I think the military gear took some of the fun out of the pulp nature of Batman's appearances.

[Herr Logan]

Some of my favourite stuff in BTAS was Batman's agility. In Robin's Reckoning, he dodges all that machine gun fire and fades into the darkness. It's the kind of thing I'm starting to worry we will never see in a live action movie.

I agree. I don't think we'll get what we as fans deserve in terms of Batman action.

My ideal film version of the Batman would act like a combination of the Burton film version and the Animated Series version. Obviously he'd be like in the comics, but I cite motion picture versions since that's the only comparable reference for a movie, since comic panels don't move. Anyway, what I mean is that he should be athletic, acrobatic and well-skilled in martial arts much of the time, but there are also times when he doesn't move very much but makes grand, theatrical gestures like in 'BATMAN' that frighten people. I want the Batman to be much more active than Keaton's version (the relatively lightweight costume should help with that) overall, but I still love seeing him calmly let his own stillness and menacing figure speak for itself.
I would definitely also use aspects of 'Batman Begins,' though. I think that in a couple of scenes, the "movie monster" behavior, with him sneaking around and disappearing and scaring the hell out of everyone, was great, and the one true innovation of the movie. The fight scenes would be nothing like in 'Begins,' however. The whole "you're seeing it from the criminal's point of view" thing is a bull***** excuse for poor direction and photography. The "horror movie" sequences right before the actual fighting were where this excuse actually had merit, but not when the fists and feet came into it. The fights should be along the lines of 'The New Batman/Superman Adventures,' except without the extremely unrealistic elements where unspeakably heavy objects fall on people without killing them, etc. and there's a limit to how far you can fall or jump down without hurting yourself. Again, I'm not trying to make things truly "realistic," but a lot of the stuff from the revamped animated series was totally out of control compared to the earlier seasons.

I think that when Nolan says realism, he means realism within the world and not with Batman, per se. The thing he likes about the character is the way he sort of pops within this world, this dark gritty world and this very preternatural character. It's a very pulpy concept, and one I don't think Nolan has pulled off nearly as well as he pats himself on the back for.

No, he certainly has not pulled it off well. 'Batman Begins' is probably my favorite superhero movie adaptation in recent years, and I actually saw it in the theater four or five times, and I never do that. Still, it's incredibly flawed, and every time someone lies to me in the hopes of defending those flaws, I like it less and less on a conceptual level. The fans themselves are ruining it for me as time goes on.

The great thing about the Batman is that his world is a wonderful blend of "realism" and pulp fantasy. It's based on the kind of fiction that has no sci-fi or fantasy elements, but it's enhanced by having a main character who is as elusive, mysterious and hyper-capable as many classic villains. It doesn't require science fiction to be good, but that doesn't hurt unless it's done badly. The best way to play it is a combination of film noir crime story and horror thriller. Nolan ended up making a sci-fi film anyway, despite all his bull***** about being "grounded in reality." What did he end up giving us as the master villain plan? He gave us a microwave emmitter than in reality would do what that dehydrating machine did in the Adam West Batman movie, but did something even cartoonier than that (bursting pipes with steam that didn't burn anyone). Ridiculous.

I think there is a necessary amount of realism, but Batman as a character must be completely otherworldly. I like that they showed us how Batman constructed his Batman persona, but I think the military gear took some of the fun out of the pulp nature of Batman's appearances.

Exactly. That's exactly right.

I think it's necessary to have him use materials made for military use, since as a law enforcement buff I find it incredibly cool how all this classic-looking superhero costume gear is made of practical, advanced technology currently (see the specifics in 'Batman: the Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight'), but that in no way means everything has to be explained all at once or found in one piece. Again, the costume itself should not be pieced together by easily located items in the WayneTech basement. It should be ordered seperately, custom-tailored and every detail of the entire outfit should be designed to look and function exactly like a combination of various dipictions from the comics. He should look like he stepped right off the page of a comic, and he should look and act like he could fit perfectly into a film noir thriller and a typical superhero movie all at once.

I'd have a certain amount of exposition for his various gear, but again, it wouldn't be the same way. If anything, the tailoring of the suit would be told more than shown. The early construction of the Batcave may be a two-man operation, but the Batsuit isn't a do-it-yourself job at all. This isn't some rag-tag operation, regardless of how early in his career it is. The suit shouldn't be primitive-looking at all, although I do intend to have the pouch belt for the first movie instead of the aluminum compartment belt. In either the second or third movie, he'll upgrade to the aluminum one. The Batcomputer and Batmobile in the first one will be less advanced and less tricked out than in later movies, but they'll still be impressive. Yes, he would actually have a computer, whereas he didn't in 'Begins,' which is just plain ridiculous to the point of being offensive. First and foremost, the Batman is a detective. Yes, he will spend most of his time doing detective work away from the computer, but he doesn't just work at night, so during the day, when he can't patrol the streets in costume, he works at his workstation and uses his cobbled-together but high-tech crime lab to analyze evidence. Even a premilinary Batcave has to have a computer station and crime lab, no matter what. Either this is the Batman, World's Greatest Detective, or he's a pathetic imposter.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

Now there's people (The Official Batman Begins Sequel Plot Details Thread (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244230)) saying they don't care if the Joker looks like the Joker. Like, at all. These are the same people who are okay with the Joker not being "zany," and yet they say that, "as long as the character is the Joker," and, "It seems the Joker will be the Joker when it counts: in characterisation and in terms of attitude and most importantly in terms of being a dark sadistic criminal."

I swear to God, this is getting out of control in the worst way. The outside world is getting more and more hostile. The center cannot hold!

The next time I see a suspicious person in this or any other Safe Haven, I'm going to officially revise the top posts' Ground Rules to repeat some things I said a little while ago about certain characters requiring certain visual features to in fact be the characters, and I'm going to write up an unfinished list of characters and a range of definitional guidelines for what counts as "faithful" in my not-even-close-to-humble opinion. I don't want to ever hear that kind of ridiculous nonsense in here, and the closer we get to these various sequels (not that we're even close to BB2), and the more idiotic choices are made (Movie!Venom, Heath Ledger as Movie!Joker, Russian Movie!Penguin, etc.) the more people start changing their definitions of what counts and does not count as a character.

Does that sound intolerant? God damn right it does! I'd rather the "welcome mat" for this thread series be stained with the blood of studio-worshipping sheep than tolerate the kind of disrespect these comic character-hating sycophants have for me and mine. Don't be surprised if things get more and more guarded around here.

Anyone have a problem with that? Take a look at Kame-Sennin's recent posts about future Movie!Batman costume choices and see what kind of reaction he gets for his well-constructed, thoughtful, comics-faithful arguments. That's why I refuse to be tolerant of people who disrespect the source material and embrace uncreative bastardizations.
No more Mr. Nice Guy. When the Joker's white skin, red lips, purple suit and occasionally whacky behavior gets pushed aside, the kid gloves come off. :batman:

:wolverine

[Cullen]

Now there's people (The Official Batman Begins Sequel Plot Details Thread (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244230)) saying they don't care if the Joker looks like the Joker. Like, at all. These are the same people who are okay with the Joker not being "zany," and yet they say that, "as long as the character is the Joker," and, "It seems the Joker will be the Joker when it counts: in characterisation and in terms of attitude and most importantly in terms of being a dark sadistic criminal."

I swear to God, this is getting out of control in the worst way. The outside world is getting more and more hostile. The center cannot hold!

The next time I see a suspicious person in this or any other Safe Haven, I'm going to officially revise the top posts' Ground Rules to repeat some things I said a little while ago about certain characters requiring certain visual features to in fact be the characters, and I'm going to write up an unfinished list of characters and a range of definitional guidelines for what counts as "faithful" in my not-even-close-to-humble opinion. I don't want to ever hear that kind of ridiculous nonsense in here, and the closer we get to these various sequels (not that we're even close to BB2), and the more idiotic choices are made (Movie!Venom, Heath Ledger as Movie!Joker, Russian Movie!Penguin, etc.) the more people start changing their definitions of what counts and does not count as a character.

Does that sound intolerant? God damn right it does! I'd rather the "welcome mat" for this thread series be stained with the blood of studio-worshipping sheep than tolerate the kind of disrespect these comic character-hating sycophants have for me and mine. Don't be surprised if things get more and more guarded around here.

Anyone have a problem with that? Take a look at Kame-Sennin's recent posts about future Movie!Batman costume choices and see what kind of reaction he gets for his well-constructed, thoughtful, comics-faithful arguments. That's why I refuse to be tolerant of people who disrespect the source material and embrace uncreative bastardizations.
No more Mr. Nice Guy. When the Joker's white skin, red lips, purple suit and occasionally whacky behavior gets pushed aside, the kid gloves come off. :batman:

:wolverineI'm not entirely sure I want a "zany" Joker. Flamboyant, yes, "zany", no. Zany puts it too close to comedy and Caeser Romero (I might have mispelt his name. Forgive me.)

This line I find interesting:
As far as his physical apperence goes, it seems pretty faitful to the comics - although its' never really explained why he will look the way he does.Especially the way it hooks with the "No makeup" and "permanent smiles on his face" Might be something to think about, might not.

While I didn't care for all of the changes in "Batman Begins", and these early rumors do bode ill, I say it's a little too early to ride Nolan out on a rail. Of the lot, he's the director whose come the closest to giving and actual adaptation. I wanna actually see the Joker, and not rely on word of mouth and first draft scripts.

[Cullen]

Of course, the above idle talk belongs in the appropriate thread and not here. Sorry 'bout that.

[Herr Logan]

I'm not entirely sure I want a "zany" Joker. Flamboyant, yes, "zany", no. Zany puts it too close to comedy and Caeser Romero (I might have mispelt his name. Forgive me.)
"Zany," "wacky," "maniacal"... whatever word you want to use, I think I quoted the article when I said that, and I'm assuming they were talking about whatever was funny about the Joker from 'BATMAN' and the animated series. It is completely unacceptable to disregard the comedic aspects of the Joker. He has absolutely no value as a straightforward "scary killer." That's not the whole of his character, and anyone who thinks they're more "mature" or whatever for publically asking for a Joker who is as cruel as possible with no sense of humor of taste for the theatrical is a pretentious little ***** who isn't a real Joker fan at all.

These little posers think they know what "dark" means in terms of villains, and they don't. A truly realistic "dark" villain is something that absolutely doesn't belong in the world of the Batman. There are some areas we just don't go in mainstream Batman fiction, because we're not meant to. The Joker isn't a rapist or a realistic serial killer, and while he can be scary to the audience, brutality alone is hardly the thing that's scary about him.

Bottom line, if the Joker isn't funny at least a good chunk of the time in a movie, then he's not being written properly, period. In the story of the movie, nobody is supposed to find him funny, because it's all so horrible and senseless and people are getting hurt. In the audience, we've got all these people who are detached from the people in the movie (and no, there's no way to make us all truly be in synch with the citizenry of Gotham City, and that's never the point of the movie), some with sick senses of humor, and we're supposed to get some comic relief despite all the seriousness going on, since the Batman himself is rarely allowed any. Jack Nicholson's Joker was hilarious. Mark Hammill's Joker was often hilarious, even in-- nay, especially-- his darkest episodes. That's the real Joker.



This line I find interesting:
Especially the way it hooks with the "No makeup" and "[/color][/size]permanent smiles on his face" Might be something to think about, might not.
What exactly does that mean, "no makeup"?
Does that mean the Joker doesn't wear makeup in the story, or that the actor isn't going to have his face painted white on the set? If it's the latter, then it absolutely isn't the Joker, and that's not up for debate at all in this thread. The Joker's face is white and has always been that way. Always. Period.

If they're talking about not having the Joker paint his face white and instead have bleached skin, then that's not even worth mentioning. Of course he doesn't paint his face white; its his permanent skin color, and every real Batman fan knows that. If they're talking about not having him paint his face flesh tone, as Jack Nicholson's Joker did, then good. I didn't see much point in that. I did actually like the permanent grin rom 'BATMAN', though, but since that wasn't a consistent part of the comics, I wouldn't demand them use it.

While I didn't care for all of the changes in "Batman Begins", and these early rumors do bode ill, I say it's a little too early to ride Nolan out on a rail. Of the lot, he's the director whose come the closest to giving and actual adaptation. I wanna actually see the Joker, and not rely on word of mouth and first draft scripts.
I'm going to ride Nolan out on a rail on a conditional basis (as in "if this is true...") as much as I damn well please. If it turns out not to be true, then score another point for the Power of Negative Thinking.

:wolverine

[Cullen]

"Zany," "wacky," "maniacal"... whatever word you want to use, I think I quoted the article when I said that, and I'm assuming they were talking about whatever was funny about the Joker from 'BATMAN' and the animated series. It is completely unacceptable to disregard the comedic aspects of the Joker. He has absolutely no value as a straightforward "scary killer." That's not the whole of his character, and anyone who thinks they're more "mature" or whatever for publically asking for a Joker who is as cruel as possible with no sense of humor of taste for the theatrical is a pretentious little ***** who isn't a real Joker fan at all.I didn't mean grim an' gritty Joker. Zany seems a bit much, is all.

These little posers think they know what "dark" means in terms of villains, and they don't. A truly realistic "dark" villain is something that absolutely doesn't belong in the world of the Batman. There are some areas we just don't go in mainstream Batman fiction, because we're not meant to. The Joker isn't a rapist or a realistic serial killer, and while he can be scary to the audience, brutality alone is hardly the thing that's scary about him.

Bottom line, if the Joker isn't funny at least a good chunk of the time in a movie, then he's not being written properly, period. In the story of the movie, nobody is supposed to find him funny, because it's all so horrible and senseless and people are getting hurt. In the audience, we've got all these people who are detached from the people in the movie (and no, there's no way to make us all truly be in synch with the citizenry of Gotham City, and that's never the point of the movie), some with sick senses of humor, and we're supposed to get some comic relief despite all the seriousness going on, since the Batman himself is rarely allowed any. Jack Nicholson's Joker was hilarious. Mark Hammill's Joker was often hilarious, even in-- nay, especially-- his darkest episodes. That's the real Joker.True.
What exactly does that mean, "no makeup"?
Does that mean the Joker doesn't wear makeup in the story, or that the actor isn't going to have his face painted white on the set? If it's the latter, then it absolutely isn't the Joker, and that's not up for debate at all in this thread. The Joker's face is white and has always been that way. Always. Period.Again, true. Like I said, the quote's interesting. Almost contradictory in many respects.

If they're talking about not having the Joker paint his face white and instead have bleached skin, then that's not even worth mentioning. Of course he doesn't paint his face white; its his permanent skin color, and every real Batman fan knows that. If they're talking about not having him paint his face flesh tone, as Jack Nicholson's Joker did, then good. I didn't see much point in that. I did actually like the permanent grin rom 'BATMAN', though, but since that wasn't a consistent part of the comics, I wouldn't demand them use it. To be honest, after becoming more familiar with Batman, I think the whole "permanent grin" thing really doesn't work for me.

I'm going to ride Nolan out on a rail on a conditional basis (as in "if this is true...") as much as I damn well please. If it turns out not to be true, then score another point for the Power of Negative Thinking.

:wolverineI never doubted you would keep on going. :up:

[Zev]

Man, I hope Joker is innocent and funny, like back in the Golden Age.

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/6937/batman257page090uk7.jpg

Errr... yeah, they might wanna update a few things...

("Hey kid, wanna see my crowbar?")

[Herr Logan]

Man, I hope Joker is innocent and funny, like back in the Golden Age.

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/6937/batman257page090uk7.jpg

Errr... yeah, they might wanna update a few things...

("Hey kid, wanna see my crowbar?")

Go back and find the exact part where I said "innocent," Zev. Do it right now. Oh, I didn't say that? Well, golly, I guess when I said "funny" I must have been talking about something that would appeal to a sick sense of humor (go back and find the exact part where I said "sick senses of humor"... do it right now).

The only thing from the Golden Age I'd use for the Joker is his habit of brazenly announcing his upcoming kills on TV, which is something that's followed him all the way through the "light-hearted" days and into stories like the Laughing Fish one (it wasn't actually entitled that in the comics, but you know the one I mean). I'm talking about Jack Nicholson's Joker and Mark Hammil's from 'Mask of the Phantasm" and 'The New Batman/Superman Adventures.'

Go take your sarcastic bull**** elsewhere, Zev. Nobody's impressed at your ability to make weak straw man arguments.

:wolverine

[Zev]

Chill, it was a joke. It's not like I'd need straw man arguments to beat down a man who thinks Count Nefaria and the Ani-Men should be the main villains in an X-Men movie.

I think Joker is a tricky thing to adapt. Too "funny" and you get Jim Carrey's Riddler, too serious and he isn't the Joker. On the Freddy Krueger scale of funny villains, I'd rather he scale more towards the early movies, where he made a few wisecracks, but not to the first movie where he was a silent killer or the later movies where he was a clown. But for a while there, he was pulling people's tendons out and using them as puppet strings and making jokes about it.

So in conclusion, as long as he's making jokes about killing people and not, say, going on a rant about supermarket prices or stealing balloons, people will take him seriously. He shouldn't be Family Guy, is what I'm saying.

[Herr Logan]

Chill, it was a joke.

No, it was a deliberate attempt to undermine me, and you put words in my mouth to do it, which is unacceptable.

I think Joker is a tricky thing to adapt. Too "funny" and you get Jim Carrey's Riddler, too serious and he isn't the Joker. On the Freddy Krueger scale of funny villains, I'd rather he scale more towards the early movies, where he made a few wisecracks, but not to the first movie where he was a silent killer or the later movies where he was a clown. But for a while there, he was pulling people's tendons out and using them as puppet strings and making jokes about it.

So in conclusion, as long as he's making jokes about killing people and not, say, going on a rant about supermarket prices or stealing balloons, people will take him seriously. He shouldn't be Family Guy, is what I'm saying.

I think the Joker is probably the easiest Batman villain to "adapt" for a movie, if you mean in terms of choosing how much of which elements go into the character and the basic character design. There's already at least two perfect models of how to adapt him correctly. What's difficult is writing him well. The jokes have to be funny to the right people. Choosing what he wears, what he looks like (generally speaking, not taking into account which actor they have to build the prosthetics for), and his basic M.O. shouldn't be all that hard. Again, it's been done already, and I feel no need to reinvent the Joker just to try and look clever. That's just about the most insecure thing I can think of (someone trying to do that), and believe me, I know from insecure.

:wolverine

[Cullen]

Man, I hope Joker is innocent and funny, like back in the Golden Age.

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/6937/batman257page090uk7.jpg

Errr... yeah, they might wanna update a few things...

("Hey kid, wanna see my crowbar?")When they warned me not to takecandy from strangers, they were thinking of this moment....

[Zev]

When they warned me not to takecandy from strangers, they were thinking of this moment....

See? He gets it.

While it may be easy to throw white facepaint on a guy and stick him in a purple tuxedo, actually gauging the audience's reaction to him is another thing entirely. Once again, if he's too "jokey" (see: every villain Akiva Goldsman has ever written), the audience can't take him seriously, but why even do the Joker if you're not going to have him be funny? It's a tough line to walk.

[Herr Logan]

See? He gets it.

While it may be easy to throw white facepaint on a guy and stick him in a purple tuxedo, actually gauging the audience's reaction to him is another thing entirely. Once again, if he's too "jokey" (see: every villain Akiva Goldsman has ever written), the audience can't take him seriously, but why even do the Joker if you're not going to have him be funny? It's a tough line to walk.

I'm sorry, are we now debating whether the Joker would have bleached-white skin and a purple suit (not tuxedo, unless it's a very special occasion) in a faithful Batman movie? I'm being paranoid even thinking that's a possibility, right?

:wolverine

[Zaphod]

What I find absoloutley astonishing is how people, the so called 'fans' who clog up the Batman forums, or the filmmakers themselves, seem to feel that having the villain in his/her faithful costume for a movie adaptation 'wouldn't translate well' or 'fit in with Nolans tone'. For the 'Batman Begins' sequel this is shaping up into being a particularly bad problem, one that may well seriously undermine the movie as a whole should they go through with altering the Joker's costume etc. The argument is of course completely redundant; for one thing, you have the main protagonist of the movie, Christian Bale as the Batman, running around in a 'bat suit'. A 'bat-suit'! That means Nolan, that we have the central character masquerading as a bat-creature, so how in gods name can you say that the same, or similar costumed antics (i.e, the Joker as a clown type) cannot be adapted (albeit, he has never actually claimed this, but we all know the general consensus amongst these filmmakers). I know what they'd say in return, that the Batman's identity is used by Bruce as a form of psychological warfare and has practical purposes, which doesn't apply to villains in the same way. This of course is not a valid counter-argument in the slightest, since; The Batman villains, or the majority of, are psychopathic and insane, meaning that their actions, dress sense and general manner should in no way come accross as even remotely relatable, except in terms of known psychological traits!!. Why is this so hard to grasp? Do these filmmakers seriously think that we really want to see the Joker with no white skin and greenhair, and instead, a regular business suit like we had Scarecrow in during 'Begins'?

Filmmakers seem to beleive that in order to make the films 'dark', 'gritty' and dare I say it, 'realistic', they have to trim down or entirely do away with otherwise essential and colourful elements which have made the comic-books so rich for so long, and replace it with plain looking replacements or black leather (that seems to be the trend now doesn't it? Thank you Matrix...). Instead, why not focus on brining the thematic elements to the front if you want to go deep into realism, that way you can keep the colourful elements and still make a 'dark' and 'serious' movie (the former applies only to the appropriate source material in this case, i.e 'Batman'). Filmmakers should be doing this anyway, but, here we are...

[JLBats]

There are ways to do Joker and have him look like the comic without needing a purple tuxedo. There isn't a way to do faithful Joker without the white face and green hair.

[Herr Logan]

There are ways to do Joker and have him look like the comic without needing a purple tuxedo. There isn't a way to do faithful Joker without the white face and green hair.
Suit! Purple suit, not tuxedo!! :mad:

I'll concede that it's true that you could do it without the purple suit, but only is there is another outfit he can wear that is both classy (as in well-tailored in its design) and absurd (the coloring/pattern). The Joker dresses well and he dresses weird. That much is never up for debate.

:wolverine

[Zaphod]

Herr, I'm cooking up alot of Batman material which I plan to post here or PM you. I'll probaly PM you with a concept of mine first which I want to run by you. I will say that it drastically alters alot of the structure which we have scatter brained so far, the structure, not the content, so keep that in mind. I still want to go with 'The Man Who Falls' for an origin, and a movie which hinges on many elements from 'Year One' as it's story inspiration, however I have a new idea on how to do this, one that I think is a marked improvement. I'll see if I can PM you a rundown of the concept tonight. :up:

[Herr Logan]

Herr, I'm cooking up alot of Batman material which I plan to post here or PM you. I'll probaly PM you with a concept of mine first which I want to run by you. I will say that it drastically alters alot of the structure which we have scatter brained so far, the structure, not the content, so keep that in mind. I still want to go with 'The Man Who Falls' for an origin, and a movie which hinges on many elements from 'Year One' as it's story inspiration, however I have a new idea on how to do this, one that I think is a marked improvement. I'll see if I can PM you a rundown of the concept tonight. :up:

Cool. I look forward to it.

I intend to comment on what you said about the Riddler soon and also your response earlier today. I wanted to wait until I would be more cogent and insightful, since you deserve that, but that may never actually happen. I'll respond soon either way, since I'm defiintely not ignoring you.

:wolverine

[Zev]

I'm sorry, are we now debating whether the Joker would have bleached-white skin and a purple suit (not tuxedo, unless it's a very special occasion) in a faithful Batman movie? I'm being paranoid even thinking that's a possibility, right?

:wolverine

No, we're talking about how the Joker should act.

[Cullen]

I'm sure to be corrected if I get the story title wrong...

"Night of the Laughing Fish." The Joker uses his chemicals to create a fish that has his features (all in the Gotham River, naturally). He then tries to patent the Joker-fish in order to earn money whenever someone sells his fish. Never mind the fish is now inedible and wouldn't sell anyway.

That doesn't strike me as zany or wacky. It's darkly humorous, gallows humor.

The Joker might think he's zany, a laugh-a-minute, but I don't think anyone else should.

But that's just me.

[The Batman]

The Batman’s Movie Concepts for Batman

Batverse I see Batman the way it was captured on B:TAS, Hush, The 70’s Batman comics, etc. I prefer the more classic Batman elements from the early golden age and Bronze Age. Gotham should be a pulpy city with crime noir elements. The skyscrapers are gothic and something otherworldly. I see Gotham as a city with a serious crime problem, not necessarily a city where everyone and everything is evil and there’s no hope what so ever of bringing things back to a decent level of peace like most post crisis comics would like to portray it. I feel Gotham brings out interesting characters, and my Batman movies would reflect that. We see the rich snobby elite, the GCPD, and the common people of Gotham. I want Gotham to come alive, really.

[b]The Main Man:I think Batman should be mysterious as possible. I don’t really wanna know how he found the batcave, how he made the batarang, or how he made his suit. That’s what I liked about Burtons Batman. He was so damn mysterious, and shadow like. He was cool, and calculated. Bales Batman, IMO, is a little too emotional. I think Batman is a guy who knows damn well what he’s doing, and I would show that onscreen. I think there are three sides to Batman:

Playboy Bruce Wayne: I see playboy Bruce Wayne as a mix of Howard Hughes, and an American version of James Bond. I don’t necessarily see him as an idiot or an airhead. He’s a known womanizer, and his exploits are in the Gotham Gazette every week. No one would think this guy is The Batman. This is probably where most of the humor in this movie comes from.

The Batman: The Dark Side of Bruce Wayne. This is where he channels his anger. As Batman, he’s all about action, and not much talking unless he has too. He’s very much a “to the point” kind of guy. The whole presentation of Batman is about intimidation, which I may have to explain more in my costume description.

The Real Bruce: The real Bruce is the guy who talks to Alfred or Leslie Thompkins. He has a black and sarcastic sense of humor, and is very idealistic. He Believes in Gotham, and he believes he can make it better, and does so anyway he can.

Batskills:We see a variety of skills in my films, mainly his detective skills, vast intelligence, Fighting skills, and his knack for disguises. I see Batman as very methodical, and to him, at the end of the day, its about brains. This will show the general audience that batman isn’t dependant on gadgets or only cares about ninja skills. This man is a genius, plain and simple. And the fight scenes wouldn’t suck like they did in Nolan’s flicks.

Love Interest?!?!?!?!:

[kame-sennin]

Now there's people (The Official Batman Begins Sequel Plot Details Thread (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244230)) saying they don't care if the Joker looks like the Joker. Like, at all. These are the same people who are okay with the Joker not being "zany," and yet they say that, "as long as the character is the Joker," and, "It seems the Joker will be the Joker when it counts: in characterisation and in terms of attitude and most importantly in terms of being a dark sadistic criminal."

I swear to God, this is getting out of control in the worst way. The outside world is getting more and more hostile. The center cannot hold!
:wolverine

The Joker thing has been out of contol for about a year now, but I agree, some things have gotten worse. I usually avoid those debates if I can because I don't see an entry point for actually logic. Thanks for the compliments, btw.

What I find absoloutley astonishing is how people, the so called 'fans' who clog up the Batman forums, or the filmmakers themselves, seem to feel that having the villain in his/her faithful costume for a movie adaptation 'wouldn't translate well' or 'fit in with Nolans tone'. For the 'Batman Begins' sequel this is shaping up into being a particularly bad problem, one that may well seriously undermine the movie as a whole should they go through with altering the Joker's costume etc. The argument is of course completely redundant; for one thing, you have the main protagonist of the movie, Christian Bale as the Batman, running around in a 'bat suit'. A 'bat-suit'! That means Nolan, that we have the central character masquerading as a bat-creature, so how in gods name can you say that the same, or similar costumed antics (i.e, the Joker as a clown type) cannot be adapted (albeit, he has never actually claimed this, but we all know the general consensus amongst these filmmakers). I know what they'd say in return, that the Batman's identity is used by Bruce as a form of psychological warfare and has practical purposes, which doesn't apply to villains in the same way. This of course is not a valid counter-argument in the slightest, since; The Batman villains, or the majority of, are psychopathic and insane, meaning that their actions, dress sense and general manner should in no way come accross as even remotely relatable, except in terms of known psychological traits!!. Why is this so hard to grasp? Do these filmmakers seriously think that we really want to see the Joker with no white skin and greenhair, and instead, a regular business suit like we had Scarecrow in during 'Begins'?

Filmmakers seem to beleive that in order to make the films 'dark', 'gritty' and dare I say it, 'realistic', they have to trim down or entirely do away with otherwise essential and colourful elements which have made the comic-books so rich for so long, and replace it with plain looking replacements or black leather (that seems to be the trend now doesn't it? Thank you Matrix...). Instead, why not focus on brining the thematic elements to the front if you want to go deep into realism, that way you can keep the colourful elements and still make a 'dark' and 'serious' movie (the former applies only to the appropriate source material in this case, i.e 'Batman'). Filmmakers should be doing this anyway, but, here we are...

It all boils down to insecurity and lack of creativity. It's sad, but a lot of Batman "fans" are really only interested in the general idea of Batman, i.e. a dark, dangerous, and mysterious vigilante. Everything else is sort of irrellevant. They just want to see a cool movie, not a cool Batman movie. That's why they refuse to understand the simple fact that an insane man can dress any way he pleases, and that realism doesn't really apply when dealing with this kind of character and his motivations. I mean, have these people ever been to New York city? I've seen a lot stranger things than purple pin stripe suits.

Also, adding insult to injury, both the fans and filmmakers act as if there were no possible way to properly translate these comic book costumes because they lack the will to imagine it.

[Herr Logan]

I'm sure to be corrected if I get the story title wrong...

"Night of the Laughing Fish." The Joker uses his chemicals to create a fish that has his features (all in the Gotham River, naturally). He then tries to patent the Joker-fish in order to earn money whenever someone sells his fish. Never mind the fish is now inedible and wouldn't sell anyway.

That doesn't strike me as zany or wacky. It's darkly humorous, gallows humor.

The Joker might think he's zany, a laugh-a-minute, but I don't think anyone else should.

But that's just me.

Zany means "Ludicrously comical" and "clownish."

I'm not arguing about this word anymore. I'm saying that the Joker acts in a very outlandish and often frantic, comical manner. If he does not do this for a good chunk of his screentime in a Batman movie, he is not the Joker. Period.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

The Batman’s Movie Concepts for Batman

Batverse I see Batman the way it was captured on B:TAS, Hush, The 70’s Batman comics, etc. I prefer the more classic Batman elements from the early golden age and Bronze Age. Gotham should be a pulpy city with crime noir elements. The skyscrapers are gothic and something otherworldly. I see Gotham as a city with a serious crime problem, not necessarily a city where everyone and everything is evil and there’s no hope what so ever of bringing things back to a decent level of peace like most post crisis comics would like to portray it. I feel Gotham brings out interesting characters, and my Batman movies would reflect that. We see the rich snobby elite, the GCPD, and the common people of Gotham. I want Gotham to come alive, really.

[B]The Main Man:I think Batman should be mysterious as possible. I don’t really wanna know how he found the batcave, how he made the batarang, or how he made his suit. That’s what I liked about Burtons Batman. He was so damn mysterious, and shadow like. He was cool, and calculated. Bales Batman, IMO, is a little too emotional. I think Batman is a guy who knows damn well what he’s doing, and I would show that onscreen. I think there are three sides to Batman:

Playboy Bruce Wayne: I see playboy Bruce Wayne as a mix of Howard Hughes, and an American version of James Bond. I don’t necessarily see him as an idiot or an airhead. He’s a known womanizer, and his exploits are in the Gotham Gazette every week. No one would think this guy is The Batman. This is probably where most of the humor in this movie comes from.

The Batman: The Dark Side of Bruce Wayne. This is where he channels his anger. As Batman, he’s all about action, and not much talking unless he has too. He’s very much a “to the point” kind of guy. The whole presentation of Batman is about intimidation, which I may have to explain more in my costume description.

The Real Bruce: The real Bruce is the guy who talks to Alfred or Leslie Thompkins. He has a black and sarcastic sense of humor, and is very idealistic. He Believes in Gotham, and he believes he can make it better, and does so anyway he can.

Batskills:We see a variety of skills in my films, mainly his detective skills, vast intelligence, Fighting skills, and his knack for disguises. I see Batman as very methodical, and to him, at the end of the day, its about brains. This will show the general audience that batman isn’t dependant on gadgets or only cares about ninja skills. This man is a genius, plain and simple. And the fight scenes wouldn’t suck like they did in Nolan’s flicks.

Love Interest?!?!?!?!:
As long as that last colon isn't followed up by anyone but Catwoman, Silver St. Cloud or Talia Head, I say... PERFECT!!

I, personally, would like to have the Batman explain, only to Alfred, how his gear works, and to show how he built it up bit by bit, just he and his faithful valet, but it's a perfectly valid to leave all of that stuff in the dark as well, as long as the costume and certain gear is faithful to the comics. :batman:

Good stuff. :up:


:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

What I find absoloutley astonishing is how people, the so called 'fans' who clog up the Batman forums, or the filmmakers themselves, seem to feel that having the villain in his/her faithful costume for a movie adaptation 'wouldn't translate well' or 'fit in with Nolans tone'. For the 'Batman Begins' sequel this is shaping up into being a particularly bad problem, one that may well seriously undermine the movie as a whole should they go through with altering the Joker's costume etc. The argument is of course completely redundant; for one thing, you have the main protagonist of the movie, Christian Bale as the Batman, running around in a 'bat suit'. A 'bat-suit'! That means Nolan, that we have the central character masquerading as a bat-creature, so how in gods name can you say that the same, or similar costumed antics (i.e, the Joker as a clown type) cannot be adapted (albeit, he has never actually claimed this, but we all know the general consensus amongst these filmmakers). I know what they'd say in return, that the Batman's identity is used by Bruce as a form of psychological warfare and has practical purposes, which doesn't apply to villains in the same way. This of course is not a valid counter-argument in the slightest, since; The Batman villains, or the majority of, are psychopathic and insane, meaning that their actions, dress sense and general manner should in no way come accross as even remotely relatable, except in terms of known psychological traits!!. Why is this so hard to grasp? Do these filmmakers seriously think that we really want to see the Joker with no white skin and greenhair, and instead, a regular business suit like we had Scarecrow in during 'Begins'?

Filmmakers seem to beleive that in order to make the films 'dark', 'gritty' and dare I say it, 'realistic', they have to trim down or entirely do away with otherwise essential and colourful elements which have made the comic-books so rich for so long, and replace it with plain looking replacements or black leather (that seems to be the trend now doesn't it? Thank you Matrix...). Instead, why not focus on brining the thematic elements to the front if you want to go deep into realism, that way you can keep the colourful elements and still make a 'dark' and 'serious' movie (the former applies only to the appropriate source material in this case, i.e 'Batman'). Filmmakers should be doing this anyway, but, here we are...
There's not much to say about this that you haven't covered. You're absolutely right about all of this.

One thing I can say is that I've always strived to work with what you've described in that last paragraph. There are all sorts of ways to leave in and promote the classic thematic elements (instead of watering them down) and still enhance the story with "realistic" elements. Using real life psychological terms will not always be helpful with all Batman villains, but for some they are, and even when it isn't making an absolute declaration, it shows that you're thinking about it in the context of what this would be in real life (ex., what I said about Alfred telling Bruce Wayne that the psychiatrists that evaluated him as a child said that he might be at risk for schizoid disorder if his behavior doesn't show progress in his teen years... this isn't a diagnosis, since that can't be diagnosed in a child, but it's a real-life psychological phenomenon that isn't too far off from some of the Batman's adult behavior). The same way that the Batman has said in the comics that Victor Zsasz isn't a serial killer, since there is no pattern to his choice of victims, the same could be said of the Joker (and I know everyone reading this knows the Joker isn't a serial killer, right?). The Batman should be shown as well-read in psychological profiling (but not dependent on it, since it's a very small margin where that kind of profiling gets results in everyday crimefighting, and while the Batman has been shown writing off possibilities because of profiling-type though patterns, he's also very much like Sherlock Holmes much of the time, which means he doesn't discount anything until it's deemed impossible), and now he's documenting what seems to be a new trend in serial offending patterns. He, or someone else (possibly someone who studied or worked at Arkham Asylum, or someone from an earlier decade) could even come up with a tentative term for the trend of adopting an identity and behavior patterns based on gimmmicks (supposing there isn't one in real life now). That's the kind of "realism" I'm going for, not this ridiculous and offensive trend of simply making things more boring. Are we here to see superheroes and supervillains, or not?

Feck "Nolan's realistic approach."... it's completely, 100% worthless. Yeah, he did a lot of things pretty well, but it had barely anything to do with "realism," and there's no reason why anyone else who was looking at the situation from a different viewpoint that didn't include a "realistic" focus couldn't have done just as well and better.

The Joker thing has been out of contol for about a year now, but I agree, some things have gotten worse. I usually avoid those debates if I can because I don't see an entry point for actually logic. Thanks for the compliments, btw.



It all boils down to insecurity and lack of creativity. It's sad, but a lot of Batman "fans" are really only interested in the general idea of Batman, i.e. a dark, dangerous, and mysterious vigilante. Everything else is sort of irrellevant. They just want to see a cool movie, not a cool Batman movie. That's why they refuse to understand the simple fact that an insane man can dress any way he pleases, and that realism doesn't really apply when dealing with this kind of character and his motivations. I mean, have these people ever been to New York city? I've seen a lot stranger things than purple pin stripe suits.

Also, adding insult to injury, both the fans and filmmakers act as if there were no possible way to properly translate these comic book costumes because they lack the will to imagine it.
You, also, are 100% right about this. It digusts me that these people are the ones who keep filmmakers on their twisted path, and that they have the gall to look down on people who demand more faithful movies. They have the gall to assume that our only expectation is faithfulness and that our interests in no way interact. Hey, I want a "cool" movie, too, but it can't be cool if it professes to be about certain characters and are not, in fact, about those characters.

People act like big themes are important and details are unimportant. I'll say again what I've said in the past: There is nothing more important in the validity of an adaptation of well established, epic fictional characters than details. Nothing.
If not for the details, you've got archetypal characters indistinguishable from others in the genre, and that takes no integrity or knowledge to write. That's why nobody is allowed to use terms like "nitpicks" to criticize posters in these threads. Nothing is merely a nitpick. People can argue about how necessary certain aspects are to certain characters or stories, but the details are the most essential aspect of the stories. There's no such thing as the "essence" of the characters if their appearance, individual mannerisms, unique histories and other distinguishable traits are not intact.

A lot of people think the Batman is cool in his comics. Anyone who thinks that can't be translated into a movie as directly as possible is either lazy, unintelligent, or even more defeatist than I am on my most depressed days. The people who say "that won't work" or "can't be translated" are losers, plain and simple.
In the immortal words of John Locke, and allowing for the hypothetical nature of the situation (since I have not the requisite connections, resources or specific training yet to produce any of these products yet): "Don't tell me what I can't do."


Thanks for posting, guys. :up:

:wolverine

[Zaphod]

Herr:

After doing some thinking on the hypothetical Batman franchise of ours, I have come to the conclusion that their should be a far more effective way in showing to the audience a fully fleshed out origin for Bruce’s character, straight out of ‘The Man Who Falls’ and the scenes involving young Bruce in Gotham as we spoke about, and a movie which still spends most of the screen time showing the Batman in action when he gets back to Gotham.

I believe that the most effective way to do this is to portray Bruce’s origin in a mini-series, which would air preceding the release of ‘The Batman’, or during. The series would show Bruce’s journey from the FBI, through his training with Kirigi in Korea up until he’s encounter with the Shaman. Each episode would focus on a particular type of training, divided into ‘Chapters’, and would intersplice flashback sequences relating back to Bruce’s childhood in Gotham, from his falling down the well into the bat-cave, through to his Parents murder, and him finally leaving Gotham at age 14. Each episode would focus on a certain moral, thematic skills, which Bruce learns, aswell as the practical ones, which he uses in the field. Think of it as a cross between CSI and Lost (in terms of narrative structure, with flashbacks and so forth) in some respects. Of course, I would have the series called ‘Bruce Wayne: The Man Who Falls’ and the series would be just that, a dramatised portrayal of said events from that story. While I would still maintain faithfulness to the comics as close as possible, I think that we could potentially expand on some sequences for the sake of the series, which wouldn’t hamper the existing mytho’s but even improve upon it; I’m talking about a mini series with decent production value which deals in the psychological development of Bruce Wayne as well as his journey in mastering all the skills we know him to have as Batman. Such examples of expanding faithfully upon events in the Man Who Falls story would naturally include Bruce training with Kirigi, but also Bruce in the FBI I feel could benefit from a story with more depth, although still firmly relating to Bruce’s disillusionment of course. I just mean that the events which show such disillusionment could be fleshed out into it’s own story for a single episode. I know this could be done well, and I hope it’s making sense to you, since I’m not to good on getting some ideas across.

The movie, ‘The Batman’, could therefore take of a lot with Batman in Gotham easier since the series would serve as its origin story. It’s worth adding now, that the series would promote the movie as much as being a serious piece of televised drama, for the sake of letting the viewing audience know that both shows are connected. Such as advertising the trailer at the end or the beginning of every episode, or something. However, in order to make the movie itself coherent and to provide the necessary back story elements for those who may have not seen the series, I would have minor flashback scenes to the series (literally, minor) to show how the Batman’s current way of fighting crime parallels the skills Bruce learnt abroad. I know for a fact there is a way of doing this without making the series watching audience feel like their retreading old ground. Even those who have seen the series would enjoy seeing how the skills have been carried over into the Batman’s career, which would give them a proper understanding of how the Batman works, even to those in the casual audience. The movie in this case would be more like ‘Year One’ in the sense that it should begin with Bruce arriving home to Gotham, from there, the only origin elements would be the minor flashbacks described above, Bruce collecting data and surveillance, he’s first failed night out and then the Batman debuting. It may be worthwhile considering reintroducing the Scarecrow for this movie Herr if you like this idea, since we’d have more time to develop and show his character. Still included in the movie would be all the other elements we discussed i.e. Falcone, Penguin, Catwomen cameo etc.

I seriously think that this could work absolute wonders, making a brilliantly dramatised series detailing Bruce’s journey from anguished child to crime fighting vigilante through a mix of series and film, which would function as an overarching franchise.

Sorry if that was all scatterbrained, when I’m passionate about an idea, that’s what happens. It’s better if you ask questions and I reply, since I can answer in a more cogent way. Let me know your thoughts, Herr?

[Herr Logan]

That sounds like a good idea, Zaphod. That's similar to when someone suggested that I put Professor Charles Xavier's origin stories into a miniseries that ran alongside the X-Men movies. That makes it optional to watch his origin.

I still like the title 'Batman: Year One' better than 'The Batman,' but you know that.

I'll be out of town for the weekend starting in maybe less than an hour or so, so it'll be a couple of days before I can respond to any further posts. Take care, guys, and keep up the good work. :up:

:wolverine

[The Batman]

I too cant see why anything from the comics cant be put into a movie.

In fact...Batman is probably one of the most cinematic superheroes. A truly faithful Batman movie can stun audiences. And again, The general audience dosent really care about heavy focus on realism, which is why its funny when these directors act like its the only right way to do things

[JLBats]

I too cant see why anything from the comics cant be put into a movie.

In fact...Batman is probably one of the most cinematic superheroes. A truly faithful Batman movie can stun audiences. And again, The general audience dosent really care about heavy focus on realism, which is why its funny when these directors act like its the only right way to do things

I have to say, I don't think this is so much a crime of Nolan's as it is the fans'.

Nolan said realism a few times too many perhaps, and fans took it a little too much to heart. Soon we saw info that emphasized the realism and de-emphasized the fantastical elements. Ra's was called an ecoterrorist originally. This fact was so over-emphasized that when I realised he lived in the mountains with ninjas, I was overjoyed.

I think all of this Joker stuff, with him as a normal guy with some, you know, slight green highlights in his hair, is that same fanboy realism over-hyping.

[Zaphod]

I have to say, I don't think this is so much a crime of Nolan's as it is the fans'.

Nolan said realism a few times too many perhaps, and fans took it a little too much to heart. Soon we saw info that emphasized the realism and de-emphasized the fantastical elements. Ra's was called an ecoterrorist originally. This fact was so over-emphasized that when I realised he lived in the mountains with ninjas, I was overjoyed.

I think all of this Joker stuff, with him as a normal guy with some, you know, slight green highlights in his hair, is that same fanboy realism over-hyping.

While I understand your comments on some fans jumping way to early to negative conclusions, and in part do agree, you let Nolan of to lightly. For one thing, it was Nolan who originally didn't want The Scarecrow to wear a mask, or in fact a costume at all. Alas, Nolan got his wish for the later, and we were burdened with the rather uninteresting appearence of Crane in a regular business suit. The fans have ever right to be negative towards these movies, not least because of what has gone before as obvious examples of filmmakers incompetance, but also because it usually means they can appreicate the good elements when they see them a whole lot more.

[Herr Logan]

I have to say, I don't think this is so much a crime of Nolan's as it is the fans'.

Nolan said realism a few times too many perhaps, and fans took it a little too much to heart. Soon we saw info that emphasized the realism and de-emphasized the fantastical elements. Ra's was called an ecoterrorist originally. This fact was so over-emphasized that when I realised he lived in the mountains with ninjas, I was overjoyed.

I think all of this Joker stuff, with him as a normal guy with some, you know, slight green highlights in his hair, is that same fanboy realism over-hyping.

You can't say that word as a derogative here. I know it was a mistake, but you need to check the rules.

Edit: Actually, I'm not even sure to whom that's directed, since the word is used to describe both people who actually know their comics history and demand better, and people who defend the filmmakers no matter how badly they scrw up. Either way, I stand by my inclusion of that on my "forbidden" word list, regardless of who it's describing, and we don't need the confusion. Just be more careful in the future.

:wolverine

[JLBats]

You can't say that word as a derogative here. I know it was a mistake, but you need to check the rules.

Edit: Actually, I'm not even sure to whom that's directed, since the word is used to describe both people who actually know their comics history and demand better, and people who defend the filmmakers no matter how badly they scrw up. Either way, I stand by my inclusion of that on my "forbidden" word list, regardless of who it's describing, and we don't need the confusion. Just be more careful in the future.

:wolverine

It was refering to those who don't understand Nolan's use of the word "realism" and then defend it by overhyping it, suggesting things like Joker as a smily person with none of his other defining features.

I was under the impression that the banning of the word was mostly due to the fear of some idiot coming in and accusing the people in the thread of being fanboys for supporting fedility to the comics. I used it to attack these people.

[kooguy911]

i got an idea. Lets name it Batman: Avenger Of The Night

[Herr Logan]

While I understand your comments on some fans jumping way to early to negative conclusions, and in part do agree, you let Nolan of to lightly. For one thing, it was Nolan who originally didn't want The Scarecrow to wear a mask, or in fact a costume at all. Alas, Nolan got his wish for the later, and we were burdened with the rather uninteresting appearence of Crane in a regular business suit. The fans have ever right to be negative towards these movies, not least because of what has gone before as obvious examples of filmmakers incompetance, but also because it usually means they can appreicate the good elements when they see them a whole lot more.

Co-signed.

JLBats does have a point about the fans representing what I hate more than Nolan himself has revealed officially. I thank him for pointing that out.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

It was refering to those who don't understand Nolan's use of the word "realism" and then defend it by overhyping it, suggesting things like Joker as a smily person with none of his other defining features.

I was under the impression that the banning of the word was mostly due to the fear of some idiot coming in and accusing the people in the thread of being fanboys for supporting fedility to the comics. I used it to attack these people.
I understand, and I appreciate you clearing that up. I still must ask that nobody use that word as a direct derogatory here, regardless of whom its intended to describe. This is nothing personal towards you, and I'm actually glad this came up, since it addresses the unfortunate flexibility of that hated term.

Attacking the anti-source material, pro-needless changes, "In Nolan We Trust," sycophantic studio apologists is A-okay in these threads (within reason, since I didn't create this place as a place to dish out petty Hype-centered vengeance, and we've got better things to do... but an occasional dig won't hurt), but we cannot use the "F-word," as it's confusing.

In any case, I appreciate your original point. My anger towards Nolan & Co. may well be more severe than it ought to be because of his blindly faithful, obsequious (but hostile toward perceived enemies) supporters. Then again, I did hear "small and mysterious" describing the role of Movie!Joker as an official statement from somone on the crew, and that's unforgivable. I've heard plenty else to make me rue this movie. I'm thinking that I won't be breaking my own rules this time and repeat my 4 or 5 trips to the theater for this movie, as I did for 'Batman Begins.'



:wolverine

[Zaphod]

I have decided that for 'Batman: Year One', I would have the teaser-trailer be the dinner-party scene from the graphic novel. Even if this scene isn't used in the final movie (which would be a shame if you ask me, since it's one of the greatest parts within 'Year One') I would certainly have it as the trailer; it would play out the same way that the unreleased 'Spider-Man' trailer did, y'know...the one that resembled a heist movie up until the getaway'copter got tangled in those webs between the Twin Towers? Well, that misdirection method made the trailer very cool in my opinion, and I'd go for the same with the 'Year One' trailer. The trailer would begin in the same way, with an extended scene of a dinner party in full throw, so the audience are wondering what is going on, and they're beggining to wonder what sort fo trailer this is. Carmine Falcone and Loeb would show up in a few shots; just when the audience are beggining to get the wrong impression about the trailer, the electricity to the room cuts, and the glare of spotlights pouring in through the windows flash on. As they do, and the bewildered guests look at the source of the light in confusion, we hear a voiceover, yes, 'that speech'. As the voice builds and the guests get even more panic stricken, including Falcone and Loeb who we'd see much of, the huge, encompassing silloheute of The Batman, cape outspread, comes to loom over the guests in the glare of the lights as a massive shadow. Fade out to black, and the classic black bat logo fades onto the screen. TAG LINE: Year One and [unspecified release date].

Thoughts?

In other news, Herr, how do you feel about re-including the Scarecrow into our 'Year One' movie concept, now that a TV sereis is going to be covering the origin? I still uphold the Penguin being included of course, and if Crane was to be back in, I would have Cobblepot's dealings play more cloesly to Crane (he would provide the hired muscle that Crane needs, since no other mobster in their right mind would work in any capacity with Crane, except Penguin of course, and even then it's only providing men for a tidy sum).

[Herr Logan]

I have decided that for 'Batman: Year One', I would have the teaser-trailer be the dinner-party scene from the graphic novel. Even if this scene isn't used in the final movie (which would be a shame if you ask me, since it's one of the greatest parts within 'Year One') I would certainly have it as the trailer; it would play out the same way that the unreleased 'Spider-Man' trailer did, y'know...the one that resembled a heist movie up until the getaway'copter got tangled in those webs between the Twin Towers? Well, that misdirection method made the trailer very cool in my opinion, and I'd go for the same with the 'Year One' trailer. The trailer would begin in the same way, with an extended scene of a dinner party in full throw, so the audience are wondering what is going on, and they're beggining to wonder what sort fo trailer this is. Carmine Falcone and Loeb would show up in a few shots; just when the audience are beggining to get the wrong impression about the trailer, the electricity to the room cuts, and the glare of spotlights pouring in through the windows flash on. As they do, and the bewildered guests look at the source of the light in confusion, we hear a voiceover, yes, 'that speech'. As the voice builds and the guests get even more panic stricken, including Falcone and Loeb who we'd see much of, the huge, encompassing silloheute of The Batman, cape outspread, comes to loom over the guests in the glare of the lights as a massive shadow. Fade out to black, and the classic black bat logo fades onto the screen. TAG LINE: Year One and [unspecified release date].

Thoughts?

Excellent!

Yeah, that's definitely a perfect teaser for this movie. :up:

In other news, Herr, how do you feel about re-including the Scarecrow into our 'Year One' movie concept, now that a TV sereis is going to be covering the origin? I still uphold the Penguin being included of course, and if Crane was to be back in, I would have Cobblepot's dealings play more cloesly to Crane (he would provide the hired muscle that Crane needs, since no other mobster in their right mind would work in any capacity with Crane, except Penguin of course, and even then it's only providing men for a tidy sum).

That sounds fine, as long as the Scarecrow is 100% real Scarecrow (i.e., in costume, in character, merely working at Arkham Asylum (instead of running it) and ranting about being the God of Fear and swinging a long-handled scythe, etc.). That, I am perfectly amenable to.
If this is the case, should we use my idea of Bruce Wayne's party being sabotaged with fear toxin in the drinks, where Bruce notices a strange face among the caterers/waiters and follows him to the Scarecrow, leading to his freak-out, defeat and brief detox?

I want to stick close to the story of Miller's 'Year One,' but I do want to expand and add on as we have been. I want Harvey Dent's role to be expanded from what it is in 'Year One' and actually show the Batman talking with him a couple of times (in the book he was merely hiding under Harvey's desk while Gordon was grilling Dent under the suspicion that he was the Batman, and Harvey said he could come out when Gordon was gone; there were other moments where it was heavily implied that the Batman and Dent were working together). I think it should be emphasized that the Batman approached and formed a working relationship with Dent first and Gordon second, and they were sneaking around behind Gordon's back for a while. The reason for this, in the comics and this movie, is that Dent is more open to "bending the rules" than Gordon is, and the Batman sensed that right off.
I even have some thoughts on the scene where Gordon is asking Dent where he was between certain hours of certain nights and what he knows about the Batman, and pointing out how interesting it is that he's got a set of heavy weights in his office. Harvey Dent would be charming and smart-ass about it all, remarking that he believes the Batman is a snappy dresser, has immaculate posture and excellent grammar (which will be true in the movie), etc.

Despite the earlier, closer relationship between the Batman and Dent, I do want to change things around a little and have the Batman approach Gordon instead of leaving it like Miller's graphic novel, where Gordon and the Batman have a meeting scheduled at the very, very end with no explanation for how that happened. They never exchanged any real words with each other at all (except for shouting in the street at the beginning of the big police chase, if that's even the case) during that story. That's one big change I'd put in, but I want to keep the fact that Dent and he were working together and dodging Gordon first.

Thoughts? I don't remember if I mentioned that stuff before. If I have, just ignore it.

:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

Just to reiterate my idea for a Movie!Riddler portrayal:

I would have The Riddler wear a green suit and bowler hat, and while I would indeed go with the question marks all over the green of his general dress, I would abort the purple eye mask for purple tinted lenses, simply because it fits in far better with how I would portray The Riddler in my movies.

You see, The Riddler to me is extremely arrogant, and rather than shieding his persona from the public (which an eye mask, as opposed to lenses, would suggest) he wants to advertise his actions. This may sound like The Joker, but the key difference is that while both characters are flamboyant to a degree, the Joker being a freakin' loon, the Riddler advetisises himself much differently. It would Nygma's Riddles, not his general persona, that he wants Gotham and the authroties to take heed of. Initially, I would have The Riddler as a right hand man to a mob boss in a movie where he first appears; the crime lord in question is using the Riddler as a means of sending authorites chasing down blind alleys, aswell as the Batman, which would infact make more sense since by now the Batman has proved himself a threat to anyone in the crime game, and the Riddler would be much sort after as a means of diverting away the Bat's attention.

In fact, I quite like the idea of the underworld vying for control of Nygma's services, with The Riddler more intellgent than the lot of them and with ability to have them all succumb to him through one big Riddle if he so wished. Another aspect to the Riddlers character I would introduce is to make him into a 'human lie-detector' he would be well versed in 'the riddles of the human body' as he would call them. Whenever an interrogation wasn't turning up answers, the Riddler would simply be called in by his boss to read the pup who isn't squealing!

The Riddler needs to be one seriously dark, nasty, creepy, but yet flamboyant character. I really feel he has potential for a Bat-Movie, even on par with the likes of Joker and Two Face (the latter of who I woul like to be in a movie with the Riddler, although not as partners like in 'Forever' of course). I would of course include scenes of Riddler being at the scene of one of his crime in process, since he is an arrogant bastard who seldom fears seriously being caught due to his seering intelligence and use of riddles.

Thoughts? Sorry if that was all slightly out of order, I'm scatterbrained at the moment and it's late.

This all sounds great. I'm assuming he'll also have his patented Question Mark cane at hand, possibly having been integrated with weaponry by the Penguin's people.

When you say he needs to be "one seriously dark, nasty, creepy, yet flamboyant character," I hope you don't mean you'd want us to push the brutality factor and make him something worse than he's been in the comics. If anything, Riddler should be a "relief" villain, not as in "comic relief," but as in someone who isn't as emotionally draining and horrific as Two-Face and not as psychotic and murderous as the Joker. I mean as in someone the Batman would allow Robin to confront within his first year of training.
If Riddler's in the same movie as Two-Face, I think there ought to be a little bit of "lightness" in contrast to Two-Face's story. I don't mean silliness (anymore than is necessary to even feature a Batman villain, anyway) or unrestricted levity, I mean a piece of the movie where the viewer isn't constantly thinking "What would I do if one of my only real friends turned crazy and I had to stop him... would I let him kill that mobster?" etc. I mean something not as dark, is all. Jim Carey was brilliant in the role that was written for him in 'Batman Forever' (the same cannot be said for anyone in 'Batman & Robin,' unfortunately, even allowing for bad writing), but even for a callback to the Silver Age, there was something a little... off... and regardless, that level of zaniness and camp isn't right for the general tone that you and I are going for. That doesn't mean he can't be silly at times, or even that "darker" villains can't, but it's a delicate balance that takes real thought to construct properly.




In other news:

Cullen has put in his two cents on Clayface, saying that if it isn't a monstrous shapeshifter, then there shouldn't be a Clayface at all. I'm personally keeping an open mind to the earlier incanation of Basil Karlo, the crazed actor who had no superpowers but was still a dangerous murderer. Karlo was a classic horror movie actor (you can see a resemblance in the name to another famous monster movie actor) who had starred in a movie called 'Clayface.' When he heard they were making a remake, he snapped, donned the mask of the movie's villain and embarked on a spree killing of the cast and crew.

I demand that there be at the very, very least, a cameo mention of a remake of the movie 'Clayface' in one of the movies, possibly playing at the Monarch Theater if Bruce Wayne has it re-opened, or maybe most of the letters of CLAYFACE can be hanging off the dirty marquee of the abandoned theater, having been the last show to play before they closed it down a few weeks after the Wayne murders ended up killing sales.

I think this guy is a perfect candidate for Arkham Asylum. Can't you just see the Joker critiquing his performance, saying that the Clayface creature was moving in its way, but it lacked personality, accessability, and most of all, a sense of humor. Karlo, through gritted teeth, would say, "He's... not... that... kind... of... villain!!" Heh heh.

You have to admit, if we put in a small sub-plot for the original Clayface, it would be perfectly faithful to the comics without complicating whichever movie it was in, and in the fantasy world where we're co-producers/writers/etc. and giving interviews, you can be damn sure I'd say that the only reason we didn't use a shapeshifter was because I'm not a big fan of those Clayfaces and they require too much development for "minor villain" roles, and that it was never a question of realism.

Thoughts?


:wolverine

[Herr Logan]

Aw, man, I can't believe I forgot to say this before, since it was one of my main points...


I think the Riddler should be very didactic (that means "teachy," as in acting like a teacher) and pedantic. He should also be enamored to the point of obsession with crossword puzzles (as in, crosswords is to him as superheroes is to us), so in addition to starting leading questions with the phrase, "Riddle me this" (yes, he must use it at least three times), he should also ask questions of his foes in the way a person would ask for help on a crossword (not that he needs help... again, he's just being condescending in his threats). He also makes up the number and the direction that would be the listing in a real crossword, with it occasionally having meaning.
Example: "6, Down: What's an 8-letter word for someone who doesn't comply when the Riddler asks him for the code to the main vault? Anyone? The answer is 'deceased.'"

I also think we should still use that exploding Rubik's Cube, built by the Penguin (Riddler would have several in stock), given to the Riddler's boss as a gift, and the boss would spend half and hour per day trying to solve the puzzle. Eventually, he does finish it, and when he realizes he's about to, he tells Nygma excitedly, prompting Nygma to excuse himself "to go fetch the boys to witness this momentus occasion," and while he's out of range, BOOM!!

Perhaps The Riddler will force Robin to try and solve one of those things at gunpoint towards the end, and Robin will figure out from the thugs slowly backing up and the quiet whirring noise coming from the Cube as he's on the home stretch that it's a bomb, and he'll pretend that it's stuck and can't go all the way. The bomb is sticking? Sounds like bad news for everyone, potentially. The Riddler and his boys keep backing out, slowly retreating to the exit, and Robin throws the cube at the exit before busting out with an acrobatic fight scene that disarms everyone and leaves the Riddler stuck.

I want the Riddler to have an extreme fondness for the tale of Theseus and the Sphinx, as a cautionary tale. As I remember it, nobody ever solved the Sphinx' riddle, and when Theseus came along and did, the Sphinx killed itself. One must not rest on one's laurels and put all their eggs in one basket, etc. One must be more flexible and resilient. Every defeat is a lesson and an opportunity. See, the Riddler actually would make a great teacher, which is the true tragedy in his story. "If only his brilliance were used for good instead of evil...."

The Riddler should also have one or two of his classic female bodyguards, armed and trained in martial arts, named Quiz, Query and/or Echo. She should be referred to as his "assistant," especially if anyone ever questions him as a civilian about secretly being the Riddler (this would be before he ever shows his face in public as the Riddler). It can be left ambiguous as to whether they're sleeping with him or not, but I'd like to have him read one or both of them (that means two in the same bed, but I'm sure it's completely innocent...) the story of the Sphinx in bed. That last part can be discarded, if you like.

Thoughts?

:wolverine

[Zaphod]

Excellent!

Yeah, that's definitely a perfect teaser for this movie. :up:

Thank you! I was in two minds about whether to include it since I remember you saying before that the scene in mention wasn't really Batman's style, and was one of the things which Batman did 'out of character' in Frank Miller's 'Year One'. But since your fine with it as a teaser is this to say we should include it in the final movie? This would be dodging the whole 'urban legend' thing, but that really isn't a bad thing since the Batman wants to be noticed anyway?

That sounds fine, as long as the Scarecrow is 100% real Scarecrow (i.e., in costume, in character, merely working at Arkham Asylum (instead of running it) and ranting about being the God of Fear and swinging a long-handled scythe, etc.). That, I am perfectly amenable to.

I must say I'm offended! Truly! After all the time and effort spent throughout this collaborative effort, and you still beleive me incompetant! Gah!

:mad: ;)

Of course. The Scarecrow will look and act like the real Scarecrow that the true fans know and love! I've decided that Crane's costume, when that which he wears when fully transformed into the guise of the Scarecrow (which would be for the majority of the movie) should resemble the image in this picture as close as possible, including a Sife as we've already talked about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Batman373.JPG (http://[URL=)]

If this is the case, should we use my idea of Bruce Wayne's party being sabotaged with fear toxin in the drinks, where Bruce notices a strange face among the caterers/waiters and follows him to the Scarecrow, leading to his freak-out, defeat and brief detox?

Yes :up: .

In the scene where Bruce is poisoned by the 'fear-gas' and suffering the attack by Crane while under it's hallucinogenic properties, I'd have Crane's attacks manifest themselves in Bruce's mind, in part as the 'violent dancing' kung-fu he demonstrated at times in the comics. I remember your idea that Crane would easily take Bruce out with a rake, since by this point the 'fear-gas' has rendered Bruce weak and incapable to fight, and we should still stick with that. But I think it would be a nice nod if we featured some hallucinogen-induced 'violent dancing' visual. If done right, this could come of really bizzare and creepy to see on-screen.

Whenever Bruce is under the effects of the 'fear-gas', we'd see visions of Thomas, Martha Wayne and Leslie lamenting to Bruce that he has disgraced the family name by his actions as Batman, listing the shame they have for their son and that it was Bruce's fault that they were murdered.

I want to stick close to the story of Miller's 'Year One,' but I do want to expand and add on as we have been. I want Harvey Dent's role to be expanded from what it is in 'Year One' and actually show the Batman talking with him a couple of times (in the book he was merely hiding under Harvey's desk while Gordon was grilling Dent under the suspicion that he was the Batman, and Harvey said he could come out when Gordon was gone; there were other moments where it was heavily implied that the Batman and Dent were working together). I think it should be emphasized that the Batman approached and formed a working relationship with Dent first and Gordon second, and they were sneaking around behind Gordon's back for a while. The reason for this, in the comics and this movie, is that Dent is more open to "bending the rules" than Gordon is, and the Batman sensed that right off.

Ah ok. This sounds good. Naturally, of course, Gordan would still play a major part within the movie? Certainly none less than what we saw of him in 'Batman Begins'?

I even have some thoughts on the scene where Gordon is asking Dent where he was between certain hours of certain nights and what he knows about the Batman, and pointing out how interesting it is that he's got a set of heavy weights in his office. Harvey Dent would be charming and smart-ass about it all, remarking that he believes the Batman is a snappy dresser, has immaculate posture and excellent grammar (which will be true in the movie), etc.

This is straight out of the comics, isn't it? Either way, sounds good.

Despite the earlier, closer relationship between the Batman and Dent, I do want to change things around a little and have the Batman approach Gordon instead of leaving it like Miller's graphic novel, where Gordon and the Batman have a meeting scheduled at the very, very end with no explanation for how that happened. They never exchanged any real words with each other at all (except for shouting in the street at the beginning of the big police chase, if that's even the case) during that story. That's one big change I'd put in, but I want to keep the fact that Dent and he were working together and dodging Gordon first.

Yeah, that's something I always had in mind aswell :up:

[Herr Logan]

Thank you! I was in two minds about whether to include it since I remember you saying before that the scene in mention wasn't really Batman's style, and was one of the things which Batman did 'out of character' in Frank Miller's 'Year One'. But since your fine with it as a teaser is this to say we should include it in the final movie? This would be dodging the whole 'urban legend' thing, but that really isn't a bad thing since the Batman wants to be noticed anyway?

I think it could go in the movie as well. Most of the Batman's actions should not be as direct as this with multiple witnesses and supposedly "respectable" authority figures, but this one time is okay. If nothing else, people could call it a possible prank by gangsters or... hell, even just bored, delinquent theater techies (because of the floodlights and smoke bomb). I do want him to do the thing where he walks in, lifts up the flambe pan so his face is somewhat visible, and coverers the flames again before disappearing.


I must say I'm offended! Truly! After all the time and effort spent throughout this collaborative effort, and you still beleive me incompetant! Gah!

:mad: ;)
I didn't mean it! :(

And I don't mean to be pedantic. I was just angry at the time and was unconsciously directing it at the heathens who'd have him wear a suit and nothing else... the same filthy degenerates who want a "small and mysterious" Joker role with white face paint, sans green hair and without his classic attire and gimmicks. Lowlife scum, they are!!

Of course. The Scarecrow will look and act like the real Scarecrow that the true fans know and love! I've decided that Crane's costume, when that which he wears when fully transformed into the guise of the Scarecrow (which would be for the majority of the movie) should resemble the image in this picture as close as possible, including a Sife as we've already talked about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Batman373.JPG (http://%5burl=/)

The link doesn't work. Now I'm stuck here with my curiosity and no freakin' relief for it!!

;) Sounds good, even if I can't see it.

Yes .

In the scene where Bruce is poisoned by the 'fear-gas' and suffering the attack by Crane while under it's hallucinogenic properties, I'd have Crane's attacks manifest themselves in Bruce's mind, in part as the 'violent dancing' kung-fu he demonstrated at times in the comics. I remember your idea that Crane